Back to Resource Hub

Countering Hate Speech in Times of Crisis: Considerations for Mayors and Local Governments

Last updated:

28/11/2024

Publication Date:

28/11/2024

Content Type:

Policy Briefs

Contents

Introduction 

Around the world, cities are grappling with the impacts of hate speech in their communities. Often fuelled by disinformation and exacerbated by rapid technological advancements and the reach of social media and other digital spaces, malign actors are able to proliferate hate that contributes to the fracturing of social cohesion and undermining of community resilience. Increasingly, these trends are leading to violence. The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech underscores the urgency of addressing and countering this phenomenon, which, it warns, can create an atmosphere for widespread human rights violations.  

To date, discussions on how best to address this phenomenon, which manifests in various ways based on social, religious, ethnic, national and political contexts, have centred on the roles of national governments, international bodies like the United Nations, social media and other private companies, universities and civil society organisations (CSOs). They have tended to overlook the unique contributions that mayors and other local elected leaders and local governments – whether urban or rural, big or small – can make to a whole-of-society effort to prevent hate speech and mitigate its impacts on local communities; this, when cities can play a vital role. This is due to a number of factors, including their often-unique understanding of local contexts; ability to identify early-warning signs of hate and foster inter-communal and other dialogue that can reduce tensions and build social cohesion; capacity to provide protection to targeted groups; and ability to serve as moral compasses through words and actions that promote inclusion, tolerance and co-existence.

These local stakeholders are particularly relevant in today’s complex geopolitical landscape where cities are increasingly having to manage local impacts of consecutive and parallel global crises. This includes those related to COVID-19, migration, climate, international and regional conflicts, and social, political and economic polarisation.

As Alice Wairimu Nderitu, UN Under-SecretaryGeneral and Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, said at a September 2024 Strong Cities event on the margins of the high-level week of the 79^th session of the UN General Assembly, it is local governments that can “provide insight into the coded language” that is increasingly used in different local contexts to sow hatred, reinforcing that “addressing hate speech is a huge task but cities must play a major role on the ground with their communities”.

Throughout its engagements with city and other sub-national governments around the world, including across its global network, the Strong Cities Network (Strong Cities) has identified a series of considerations for mayors and local governments interested in contributing to a whole-of-society approach to addressing the threat that hate speech poses to social cohesion in their cities. With the understanding that the specific examples listed in this policy brief may not apply to all contexts, they represent approaches and practices that we hope will guide and inspire.

The views expressed and examples cited in this policy brief do not necessarily reflect those of Strong Cities members, partner organisations or sponsors of the Network’s mission.

Considerations for Mayors and Local Governments 

1. Understand the scope of the problem: identify and track hate speech impacting your city.
2. Map out and strengthen community partnerships to facilitate reporting and other information sharing while respecting human rights.
3. Speak out consistently.
4. Implement clear policies and guidelines and take action.
5. Promote local multi-actor coordination.
6. Invest in education and media literacy.
7. Train local authorities, local police and other front-line practitioners.
8. Address hate speech that targets local elected leaders and city councils.
9. Take advantage of existing training, capacity-building resources and other learning opportunities for cities.

1. Understand the Scope of the Problem: Identify and Track Hate Speech Impacting Your City

City leaders and local governments should have a clear appreciation of the on- and offline threats that hate speech poses to their communities – and how disinformation can amplify and otherwise exacerbate the threat. They also need to understand how to recognise and identify it. By actively monitoring and proactively addressing this and related threats, cities can prevent hate speech from inciting violence or otherwise causing individual or community harm. Early identification allows for timely interventions, such as targeted public awareness campaigns, legal action or community support initiatives, that help protect vulnerable populations and maintain social cohesion.

Cities can identify and track on- and offline hate speech using a combination of technological tools, community and institutional partnerships and proactive monitoring strategies.

Use of Technology

Cities can implement technology-driven tools such as social media monitoring platforms and artificial intelligence (AI) to track hate speech in real-time. These tools can identify trends, detect harmful narratives and flag problematic content for review. Advanced AI systems can be used to detect patterns of hate speech and disinformation that can fuel it by analysing large volumes of data. For example, these systems can track the origin, spread and virality of false information, helping cities respond more quickly to harmful content before it goes viral. Cities can also deploy sentiment analysis to gauge the tone of discussions online, helping identify growing hostility or potential hate speech. This technology can detect shifts in public sentiment that might signal the emergence of dangerous narratives.

• In Barcelona (Spain), the City Council’s Municipal Data Office uses AI to analyse social media content for hate speech and false information, particularly related to anti-immigration and extremist rhetoric.
• Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) is developing a Civic Signal early warning system aimed at monitoring online trends, raising awareness among local communities and supporting city-led responses to hate. The system is designed to leverage open-source information from news sites, blogs and public forums to forecast hate trends and potential incidents. Edmonton’s approach prioritises ethical data use, avoiding personally identifiable information while instead focusing on identifying sentiment patterns and emotional cues that could indicate emerging threats. This concept, developed in collaboration with a data ethics advisor, seeks to balance robust monitoring of publicly-available information with responsible data usage to protect privacy and build community trust.
• Safe Digital Cities, pioneered by Nordic Safe Cities, aims to give municipal practitioners a deeper understanding of the online threat environment as well as tools to strengthen their digital work locally. Malmö (Sweden), used this initiative to map online hate relevant to the City to better understand the scale and scope of the problem using natural language processing algorithms. Findings showed that hate conversations online are reflected in offline activities and spiral whenever there are tensions or an incident taking place in the City. Malmöused the findings to improve its coordination with law enforcement and civil society and to inform its broader safety promotion work.
• Aalborg (Denmark) has similarly investigated online democratic conversations, with a particular focus on understanding what creates either positive or polarised online communities. The research informs the Municipality’s existing prevention work, including the launch of a digital volunteer network and digital prevention team.
• Accra (Ghana) collaborated with Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab to develop tools and methodologies for the local government to detect and counteract false narratives sewing divisions among residents and support information integrity efforts across local communities.

Be Mindful of Protecting Data Privacy and Ethical Considerations

While tracking hate speech requires monitoring online spaces, it is essential to protect the privacy rights of residents. Cities should ensure that their monitoring measures comply with data protection laws and ethical guidelines and be transparent about the methods used to track hate speech, along with the disinformation that often fuels it. Public trust is crucial, and transparency helps prevent perceptions of overreach or misuse of monitoring tools.

• Amsterdam (Netherlands) promotes transparency by ensuring residents are informed about actions against spreaders of hate speech, including through the Government-wide strategy for effectively tackling disinformation.

Technology is just one of the methods for identifying and tracking hate speech. Understanding that the technological tools may not be available to all cities, below are some no-cost tools below that local governments can use to monitor problematic content and narratives.

Collaborating with Technology Companies

Establishing partnerships and/or relationships with private technology companies and social media platforms where possible (e.g., Facebook, X, YouTube) allows cities to access data and reporting tools that can assist in identifying harmful campaigns and hateful content before they spread widely.

• New York City’s (New York, USA) Cyber Command works closely with social media platforms to track and flag false or misleading information that could influence voter behaviour or incite violence.

Fact-Checking Partnerships

Cities can collaborate with fact-checking organisations to verify information circulating in the community. These partnerships can focus on debunking false claims, especially during critical events like elections or health crises. Websites or apps can be developed to allow residents to report suspicious content, making it easier to track false information.

• During the 2022 elections, Nairobi (Kenya) partnered with Africa Check, a fact-checking organisation that focuses on political and health-related misinformation and disinformation, to dispel false claims related to political candidates and election processes. By providing citizens with verified information, the City promoted transparency and reduced the potential for hate and disinformation-driven violence.

Collaborating with Research Institutions and Civil Society Organisations

Partnering with universities and research institutions that study hate speech trends can help cities better understand online behaviour, disinformation patterns and extremist content that can lead to violence. These partnerships can also inform policy decisions and create long-term strategies to combat hate speech. Further, local community organisations and CSOs often have deep insights into the issues facing specific groups. Collaboration can help cities more easily identify hate speech and discrimination that targets vulnerable communities.

• The Village of Skokie (Illinois, USA) takes a particular interest in tracking hate incidents that do not fit the federal government’s definition of a crime but impact the community negatively, in order to understand if hate incidences are precursors of hate crime and if the City can do something to prevent a hate crime. Through its work, Skokie has learned that preventative frameworks require community partnerships to run effectively. According to Skokie officials, whereas law enforcement tends to focus on tracking hate incidents if they fit the strict definition of a hate crime, community partners are needed to encourage community members to report hate incidents that fall outside of that definition.

2. Map and Strengthen Community Partnerships to Facilitate Reporting and Other Information Sharing While Respecting Human Rights

Engaging city residents, particularly historically marginalised populations, in identifying and reporting hate speech is crucial for effectively addressing these challenges and building resilience at the local level. This is due, in part, to the fact that local communities are often the first to experience the negative effects of harmful narratives and are crucial partners in detecting, reporting and countering these threats. Community participation also ensures that city-led responses are locally tailored, inclusive and sustainable.

In addition, in order to help set realistic expectations for residents, cities should provide clear and accessible information about reporting and response processes. This includes explaining how government actions may address specific situations and offering guidance on distinguishing between related concepts, such as hate crimes, hate speech and bias incidents. When communities understand what activities they should report – and to whom – and the potential outcomes, they are more likely to engage effectively with authorities. Without this clarity, unmet expectations could discourage future collaboration and weaken trust between the community and local government.

Cities can strengthen community engagement and facilitate reporting in a number of ways. This includes by establishing community-based reporting mechanisms, proactively collaborating with and, where necessary, building the capacity of local community organisations and leaders, providing support to marginalised and targeted communities and building rapport and trust with the communities.

Community Reporting Mechanisms

Local governments should consider establishing accessible platforms for residents to report incidents of hate speech (as well as other hate incidents). Whether online, in person and/or through local phone hotlines, these systems should be easy to use and well-publicised in all relevant languages, ensuring timely responses from city officials. This promotes civic involvement and strengthens the local government’s capacity to identify emerging threats on the ground.

• Barcelona (Spain) established a public platform through which residents can report instances of discrimination or hate speech. This early-warning system allows local authorities to respond quickly to threats and provides insights into local issues that might be missed by automated monitoring tools.
• New York City’s (New York, USA) Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) uses a Complaint Process – CCHR to investigate bias incidents and discrimination and enforce the laws in specific contexts. New York City also partners with local CSOs, such as the Anti-Violence Project, to provide community hotlines for reporting.

Collaboration with Communities and Local CSOs

Local CSOs, faith and other community leaders often have unique insights into the issues faced by marginalised or other vulnerable groups targeted by hate speech. Local government collaborations with these stakeholders can help ensure that cities are aware of and can better respond to specific community concerns. Community leaders can also educate local residents about the dangers of harmful narratives and hate speech (including how it differs from “awful but lawful” speech) and encourage reporting.

• Berlin (Germany) works closely with local CSOs to better understand how hate speech affects refugees and immigrant communities. This collaboration ensures that the City’s policies are shaped by the lived experiences of those directly affected, making interventions more effective in addressing xenophobia and racism. Community organisations provide direct feedback on the effectiveness of these policies and offer insights on necessary adjustments.
• Nansana Municipality (Uganda) has established more than 30 Neighbourhood Watch groups, as a community-based model for early warning against hate and extremism. According to Mayor Regina Bakitte, since the launch in March 2024, this model has not only improved information-sharing between the local government and community members and raised community-wide awareness of hate and extremism but has also served as a platform to get youth and women – two often marginalised groups – engaged in community safety efforts.
• Mardan (Pakistan) has a local peace committee which serves as a city-led platform for local government and community leaders to come together and address sensitive social issues, including hate speech and community tensions.
• Stamford Stands Against Racism – a project supported by the City of Stamford (Connecticut, USA) – coordinates a cluster of grassroots initiatives focused on inclusion, equity, diversity and reducing hate and violence in the community.

Support for Vulnerable Communities

Marginalised and other vulnerable groups are often the primary targets of hate speech. Collaboration with community leaders and organisations representing these groups helps local governments to better understand the specific challenges these groups face and respond accordingly, including by providing psychosocial support to victims of hate. 

• In light of rising anti-migrant hate speech, the City of Gdańsk (Poland) partnered with local CSOs to facilitate the provision of free psychosocial and legal support to residents who have experienced bias, discrimination and other forms of hate. This resulted in the creation of a dedicated Gdańsk Centre for Equal Treatment that manages several ‘safe spaces’ across the City where victims of hate and discrimination can seek security and support. This, in turn, has helped residents feel more comfortable to report incidents of hate and discrimination to the local government, giving the City a more comprehensive understanding of the scale of these issues and where to target its resources.
• Madrid (Spain) created the Diversity Management Police Station in 2016, which specialises in taking care of victims of hate crimes and people belonging to vulnerable groups. The police station provides social, welfare and legal assistance to those who have suffered some type of discrimination or hate related to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, language, religion or beliefs, sex, gender, sexual orientation and other personal characteristics or status.  
• Koboko (Uganda) is a border town that hosts a high number of refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. In the past, the area experienced tensions and violence between local communities and refugees, partly caused by the impact of changing demographics on critical infrastructure and access to services, as well as spread of disinformation and hateful narratives targeting the refugees. To address this challenge, Koboko local government, in collaboration with local CSOs, mapped out the concerns and needs of both refugees and host communities and then used this mapping to develop and implement a number of projects focused on the integration of refugees in all aspects of the City: social, economic, cultural, etc. This included building a trauma centre offering psychosocial support to refugees, as well as additional schools, markets and sanitation facilities to ensure each refugee had access to basic services.

Building Trust and Legitimacy

Cities can more effectively counter hate speech and harmful narratives when they have the trust of their communities. Engaging with residents and community leaders fosters transparency and cooperation, which are essential for combatting false narratives. Without community buy-in, even the best anti-hate strategies may face resistance or scepticism.

• Cape Town (South Africa) runs a Safer and Healthier Places of Worship programme through which the City works to improve relationships among faith communities and between them and the local government. The City initially brought these groups together to give them a forum to share their concerns and what they perceive as gaps in their ability to address them, as well as to establish a regular channel of communication between the City and its diverse faith communities. Overall, the programme is helping to build trust and improve relationships between the local government and different faith groups, as well as to equip the latter with the knowledge and information needed to participate in prevention proactively.
• In the face of escalating racial and cultural tensions in the community, the City of Redlands (California, USA) and its police department have made it part of their mission to build and maintain strong ties with the community. They have done this by creating spaces where productive dialogue can happen and community cohesion can be maintained. As a result of these efforts, relations between the police and community and trust between the government and city residents have improved. Today, there are around 200 local residents who volunteer with the Redland Police Department in its various community outreach efforts.

Finally, engaging the community creates local champions who can raise awareness of and act as advocates for combating hate speech and harmful narratives. These influencers can have more impact within their communities than city officials, as they are trusted by the local communities as credible messengers.

• In Helsinki (Finland), and in other cities across Finland, local educators and community leaders have been engaged to lead media literacy efforts in schools and community centres. These individuals, trusted by their communities, play a crucial role in spreading awareness and teaching others how to identify and resist harmful narratives.
• In Spring Lake (North Carolina, USA), the local government regularly reaches out to and partners with local leaders who have credibility within their communities, to spread messages of tolerance and compassion in order to avoid escalation between residents, mitigate against hate speech and foster a safe and secure environment. 

3. Speak Out Consistently

Mayors and other city leaders should publicly address the dangers of hate speech in all its forms and manifestations, as well as speak out consistently and clearly to condemn hateful incidents when/if they occur regardless of the target group. This includes unequivocally condemning any hate-motived groups or individuals who are threatening any form of violent acts, bigoted harassment or discrimination against their residents, visitors or city staff. As Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi said at an October 2024 Strong Cities conference in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada), “it is important for mayors to address hate head on”.  By doing so, they can help reassure communities that the City remains a welcoming and inclusive one for all.

This can be done through official statements and other online or offline messaging, by actively debunking rumours, conspiracies and disinformation, or standing in solidarity with those who have been targeted by hate or in support of those who have stood up against it. As highly visible public figures, mayors and other local elected leaders, in particular, can influence public discourse, set an example for residents and mobilise resources to confront these threats head-on.

Building Trust

When mayors speak out against hate and the false information that can lie behind or fuel it, particularly in times of crisis, they reinforce the local government’s credibility as a trustworthy source of information. This helps combat the spread of harmful narratives, particularly in moments of heightened public anxiety.

• Responding to a rise in hate following the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack in Israel, more than 30 mayors from small cities and villages around Chicago (Illinois, USA), joined together to release a statement condemning “all acts of hate”. These local leaders emphasised that “[d]uring these times of strife, we are more committed than ever to safeguarding our communities. We strive to be inclusive and welcoming spaces for the residents, businesses and students who call our communities home as well as any visitors, and strongly oppose hate-motivated hostility that only serves to sow division and fear.”

Setting a Tone of Inclusivity and Tolerance

Mayors who take a public stand against hate speech and the disinformation that can fuel it, send a powerful message about the values of inclusivity and tolerance in their cities, making it clear that hate and discrimination have no place in the community. This can also help prevent marginalised groups from being targeted or isolated.

• Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London (United Kingdom), has consistently spoken out against hate speech and Islamophobia, including following the violence and disorder across the country in July 2024. By publicly condemning hate and standing up for the rights of immigrants and minorities, Mayor Khan reinforced London’s identity as a multicultural, tolerant city.

Demonstrating Leadership in Times of Crisis

In moments of social unrest or political polarisation, mayors and other local leaders who actively speak out against hate speech surrounding the unrest or polarisation can help de-escalate tensions and restore calm. Their leadership is crucial in maintaining order and protecting vulnerable communities from harm.

• After the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, where white supremacists gathered leading to violent clashes and one death, Mike Signer, Mayor of Charlottesville (Virginia, USA),spoke out strongly against hate speech and the violence that followed. He condemned the white supremacist groups involved and called for unity and healing in the community. His leadership helped bring national attention to the dangers of hate speech and his statements reinforced the local government’s solidarity with those affected by the violence.
• Shimla (India) recently experienced public protests in the wake of rising Islamophobia. As the crisis unfolded, with not only local but also cross-border and regional impacts, the Former Deputy Mayor Shimla Tikender Panwar Singh reached out to the Mayor of Mardan, Himayat Ullah Mayar (whom he met through Strong Cities) to seek his assistance in proactively reaching out to the Pashto-speaking Muslim community in Shimla to help deescalate tensions, and bringing together leaders of Shimla’s Muslim and Hindu communities to dialogue. The response from both mayors and other city leaders demonstrated their commitment to maintaining peace and communal harmony in the face of crisis and encouraged community solidarity.

4. Implement Clear Policies and Guidelines and Take Action

Clear and enforceable policies and guidelines against hate speech and discrimination provide cities with a framework for action, as well as needed resources to effectively address these threats. While respecting freedom of speech, local governments can ensure that laws and guidelines are in place to protect individuals and groups from discriminatory and harmful rhetoric while protecting freedom of expression. This may include: a) working with local law enforcement to ensure existing laws are enforced and that hate incident are properly investigated and offenders held accountable; b) ensuring city officials receive the training necessary to contribute to anti-hate efforts (e.g., anti-bias/polarisation training; how to identify and report hate incidents); and c) developing a city-wide anti-discrimination, anti-racism or other relevant policy or action plan.

The development of a city-wide policy framework can help local governments clarify key concepts related to hate speech, discrimination and related challenges, which in turn helps illustrate the nuances of when, how and where to intervene and/or allocate resources. For instance, while protections around free speech may limit action on certain hate incidents, addressing hate graffiti typically involves legal ramifications (e.g., because it may involve defacing public property) and warrants immediate attention. By including such examples in guidance or training materials, local governments can better understand the issues and make informed decisions about resource allocation and intervention strategies.

Examples of city-led actions against hate speech and discrimination, including to support the implementation of relevant national legal and/or policy frameworks, include:  

• In Sydney (New South Wales, Australia), the local government collaborates with Australia’s eSafety Commissioner to manage digital content, with a focus on reducing hate speech targeting minority and Indigenous groups. The City also makes available to residents resources, tools and guidance around online hate and discrimination, in line with Australia’s Online Safety Act, and raises awareness about strict penalties for hate speech and harmful disinformation. In addition, the New South Wales State Police has the power to prosecute people for threatening or inciting violence based on race, religion or sexual orientation without needing external approval.
• In London (UK), the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) worked with social media companies to monitor and remove hateful content during the Brexit debates, focusing on reducing xenophobic and inflammatory content, and ensuring policies were in line with UK law, balancing the need for safety with free speech protections.
• In Bend (Oregon, USA), the City Council approved an action plan to counter hate speech and discrimination and is looking to create an internal process to guide Council communications in response to these phenomena when they manifest in the community.
• Concerned about racist incidents targeting Muslims and people of colour in Edmonton (Alberta, Canada), Mayor Amerjeet Sohi prioritised the elaboration of an Anti-Racism Strategy. The strategy was developed through consultations with those who have been most affected by racism to understand their experiences and needs. Among other things, the framework calls for sustainable core and operational funding and capacity-building for CSOs that do anti-racism and anti-hate work, with dedicated funding provided especially to organisations led by people of colour. The City has, between 2022 – 2023, allocated CAD3.6 million to local CSOs under this framework.
• The City of Seattle (Washington, USA) set up the Office of the Employee Ombud to provide a safe space for city employees to report workplace issues, discuss concerns and explore options, using a trauma-informed approach to provide support and validation, and to de-escalate tensions.  

Collaboration with Law Enforcement

Local governments will need to deepen collaboration with law enforcement agencies at a time where hate speech can lead to violence or other community harms.

• In Toronto (Ontario, Canada), the City’s Hate Crime Unit enforces national laws that prohibit hate speech and online harassment, coordinating with the Toronto Police Service to respond to disinformation that could incite discrimination or violence. The City provides public channels to report hate speech or online harassment and investigates incidents under the Canadian Criminal Code.
• Cape Town (South Africa) has developed the Emergency Policing and Incident Command (EPIC) to coordinate and track multi-actor responses to safety-related incidents, including those related to hate and extremism. EPIC integrates six different police and emergency services into a single platform that is accessible via desktop and mobile, enabling critical responders to deploy and track multi-actor responses in real time.

Investing in the Community

Hate speech and manipulated information often exploit divisions within society. Local governments can mitigate this risk by investing in and promoting initiatives that foster inclusivity and dialogue between different groups. Community engagement can take many forms, from organising neighbourhood meetings and sports events to setting up an information desk at a local hospital or other service. Convening or facilitating community events that bring together people of different backgrounds, supporting intercultural and interfaith dialogue and providing funding for civic projects, such as community service, volunteering with or otherwise contributing to the work of local CSOs, can help build social capital, engendering a sense of ownership in the community and mitigate polarisation.

• In Bellevue (Washington, USA), rather than creating a stand-alone facility to support community members from diverse cultures and backgrounds to learn from each other and build relationships (which could take years to plan and finance), the City worked with a variety of partners to develop cross-cultural programming through the Cross-Cultural Center Without Walls. To date, the Center has provided funding to 19 local CSOs to host events or workshops that bring people together around shared intercultural experiences. The experiences are designed around active intercultural engagement, learning and exchange, and are delivered in different locations around Bellevue.
• In Hyderabad (India), in partnership with the community leaders and local civil society, the City has organised interfaith dialogues and cultural exchange programmes to foster understanding and solidarity among different religious communities. These initiatives include joint community service projects, interfaith prayer gatherings and educational workshops aimed at dispelling stereotypes and promoting mutual respect, all supported by the local government as part of its strategy to combat hate and polarisation.
• Kaduna State (Nigeria) established the Kaduna State’s Peace Commission, which offers avenues – including community-led programmes that promote tolerance and peaceful resolution of inter-communal conflict – for mitigating the threats of hate speech and extremism.
• In partnership with local CSOs and communities, the City of Tangier (Morocco) built over 80 playgrounds throughout the city, primarily within marginalised neighbourhoods. These playgrounds are managed by community-based associations that organise sports, cultural and educational activities for young people, as well as promoting dialogue, tolerance and solidarity, and educating them about the dangers of hate speech and the spread of hateful narratives.
• In Victoria (British Columbia, Canada), the Mayor’s Office has focused heavily on reconciliation with Indigenous communities, launching a City Family reconciliation programme in 2017 that brings Indigenous leaders together with city council members, community members and others to ensure Indigenous nations have a forum in which to share their views, inform city policies, raise concerns and jointly brainstorm ways forward.

5. Promote Local Multi-Actor Coordination

Promoting multi-actor coordination around preventing hate speech and mitigating its impacts on local communities enables cities to have a focused, coordinated and expert-driven approach to managing the complex challenges posed by hate speech. It enables the local government to benefit from the expertise of city officials local CSOs, faith leaders, educators, social workers, youth workers and local police, among others. Ensuring the approach is sufficiently structured to allow for effective information sharing among key local stakeholders and with the community and to respond to incidents in real-time is critical. In some instances, existing platforms or mechanisms can be leveraged for these purposes; in others, new ones dedicated to addressing hate speech and online harms may be appropriate.

• Boise (Idaho, USA) created a dedicated police unit to monitor online harms in regular coordination with local partners. On the demand side, local authorities adopted a trauma response plan to address the psychological impact of online incidents, drawing inspiration from the Icelandic model. This plan engages the community in proactive ways to support students and families, offering safe avenues for residents to contribute and alleviating pressure on emergency responders. A human-centred design approach in these efforts ensures that every part of the City and its communities are involved in creating inclusive solutions to address online harms.
• As part of its Anti Racism Strategy, the City Council in Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) approved budget resources for the establishment of a High-Level Office for Reconciliation and Anti-Racism to coordinate the City’s anti-racism work.
• In Helsinki  (Finland),theEquality and Anti-Discrimination Commission provides regular updates and resources to the public on issues related to off- and online hate. This transparency helps residents feel safer and more informed, knowing that their concerns about threats to equality and safety are being taken seriously.
• In London (UK), the city’s Online Hate Crime Hub is staffed with police officers trained in digital investigations. The task force collaborates with social media companies and communities to identify, assess and act on reports of online hate crimes, providing expertise in digital forensics and online monitoring that would be challenging for general law enforcement to handle alone.
• The Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes (OPHC) in New York City (New York, USA) brings together over 20 city agencies, including the New York Police Department (NYPD), Department of Education and Human Rights Commission, as well as community-based providers and organisations. OPHC takes a holistic approach to preventing hate crimes, developing and coordinating community-driven prevention strategies to address biases fuelling such crimes and fostering healing for victims and communities.
• Stamford (Connecticut, USA) established Stamford Stands Against Racism as a collective of human service and faith-based organisations that work with elected officials, the school district, local police and others to raise awareness across the city about institutional racism, train members of the public and community groups on an anti-racism curriculum, and educate residents about social disparities and inequalities.
• Stellenbosch (South Africa) established a Police Community Safety Forum as a model for multi-actor collaboration, convening ward councillors, CSOs, the private sector, city departments and national actors such as the South African Police Service.
• Victoria (British Columbia, Canada) has piloted an assisted care team model that features a dedicated team of social workers and mental health practitioners who respond to calls from residents seeking help for themselves or someone else. The model offers an alternative to police when someone is in crisis. Mayor Marianne Alto shared with Strong Cities that this model has been scaled to twelve communities in Victoria and the teams have answered over 2000 calls in the last year with only five calls being escalated to law enforcement.
• Zomba City Council (Malawi) set up hyper-local committees that are responsible for swift and effective problem-solving and crisis management. This includes a grievance management committee that works with residents to address their concerns. These structures have also been used to support hate and extremism prevention at the local level by disseminating peaceful messaging and providing the local government with an early-warning function, leveraging their daily interaction with residents to monitor for and proactively address rising tensions and instances of hate speech. 

6. Invest in Education and Media Literacy

By equipping residents, youth and older demographics, in particular, with the skills to critically analyse information, recognise and reject hateful rhetoric and promote respectful communication, local governments can build resilience against the spread of harmful narratives. Media literacy enables people to identify hate speech, biased content and disinformation, fostering a more informed and analytical approach to the media they consume. This critical thinking reduces susceptibility to manipulative narratives that often fuel hate speech and helps individuals understand the real-world consequences of their words, encouraging more constructive and empathetic dialogue.

Further, education on diversity, inclusion and cultural awareness promotes empathy and reduces biases that contribute to hateful rhetoric. By empowering individuals to engage positively online and offline, media literacy fosters a culture of respectful communication and supports efforts to counter and report hate speech. In addition, these tools strengthen community cohesion by addressing the conditions that can give rise to hate speech – ignorance, bias and manipulation – ultimately creating a more resilient and harmonious society.

Finally, city leaders can encourage residents to embrace good practices such as “lateral reading” (evaluating the credibility or accuracy of a report by comparing it with those from other sources). And, more directly, city leaders should impress upon local school systems the importance of introducing age-appropriate media literacy curricula for elementary/primary, middle and high/secondary school students, while local libraries and other community actors can provide media literacy skills training to the general population with specialised training for older people and vulnerable groups.

Education and Media Literacy Programs

One effective long-term strategy for combating hate speech is educating the public on how to recognise it and stop its spread. Citizens equipped with critical thinking skills are less likely to fall victim to false information and more capable of distinguishing credible sources from harmful content. Local governments can partner with schools, libraries and community organisations to run media literacy programmes that teach citizens how to critically evaluate the information they encounter, recognise disinformation and make informed decisions. Below are listed a number of core training topics local governments can include in educational and media literacy programmes, as well as some free resources for designing their educational programmes.

Local governments can also launch public awareness campaigns that highlight the dangers of hate speech, particularly during times of crisis, such as elections, emergencies or social unrest, and/or related to global challenges that have the potential to (further) divide communities, such as migration and ongoing wars and conflicts, including in the Middle East.

• In Mechelen (Belgium), the city’s Sustainable Online Prevention (DOPREV) initiative focuses on tackling online forms of toxic polarisation, hate speech and disinformation and responding to online signals of social alienation. The project features the game (Dis)Like, where users are introduced to various situations in which online polarisation, hate speech and disinformation occur. In a playful way, they discover skills to deal with such situations.
• The City of Nitra (Slovakia) has a strong social media presence that enables it to directly address the proliferation of hate and disinformation. In addition, recognising that older generations are particularly vulnerable to information manipulation, the city developed a training programme covering basic IT skills, as well as media literacy and other tools to help them navigate the digital world more safely.
• In 2016, Rijeka (Croatia) introduced civic education into elementary schools to promote non-violence, tolerance and solidarity to some of its youngest residents and help them develop values based on acceptance, inclusion, diversity and respect for human rights. To support the programme, Rijeka developed a textbook – The Pupil Citizen – along with supporting resources that among other things teach media and digital literacy and digital citizenship.
• Through its Espace Egalité, Strasbourg (France) uses role-playing and simulations to broach the topic of hate and discrimination with children as young as six years old. Espace serves as an education centre on discrimination, teaching visitors the more than 20 characteristics that are considered protected in French law, the impacts of discrimination and the steps victims and witnesses of discrimination can take to seek justice. It also humanises the experiences of migrants and refugees by taking children through the typical journey of an asylum seeker, while also teaching children to think critically through games and puzzles that seek to raise awareness about unconscious biases.
• Žilina (Slovakia) has been actively focusing on enhancing community resilience to online harms through education and social programmes. The City has engaged social workers in schools to assist students on digital safety and they are tasked to run educational initiatives for parents and guardians, helping them understand the impacts of social media on their children. Additionally, outside the school setting, the City offers lectures on disinformation and critical thinking for senior citizens. The City is also facilitating community discussions on sensitive issues including the impact of online harms and online hate on social cohesion.

7. Upskill Local Authorities, Local Police and Other Front-line Practitioners

Local authorities and law enforcement are on the front lines of community engagement and public safety: many will need to be trained on how to detect, recognise and respond to off- and online hate speech. Training programmes can enhance their understanding of how online narratives fuel real-world conflicts and violence and enable them to respond more effectively, build community trust and reduce harm.

Training should be tailored to the different target groups (e.g., local government officials, local police, school administrators and educators, social, youth and mental health workers, communications officers and others) and can include, as noted above:

• Identifying and documenting hate speech, and understanding disinformation tactics that fuel it;
• Crafting policies to mitigate hate speech, addressing societal impacts, promoting inclusive messaging and establishing legal and regulatory responses;
• Building trust with marginalised communities, addressing concerns, fostering inclusive dialogues, promoting media literacy and de-escalating hate-driven situations;
• Supporting victims, recognising the psychological impacts of hate speech, addressing discrimination, and understanding the spread of harmful narratives; and
• Coordinating responses to public safety threats, managing crisis communication, and mitigating the escalation of disinformation.

In Brussels (Belgium), as part of a European Union-wide initiative, the local government provides training for police on the risks and impacts of hate speech and discrimination within the city’s multicultural neighbourhoods. Training includes modules on recognising hate-driven narratives, counter-disinformation tactics and partnering with local community organisations to prevent online hate from inciting violence, which has helped Brussels’ police force to be more responsive to the cultural contexts of hate speech incidents, fostering a proactive approach to preventing hate and disinformation-fuelled conflicts in the city.

Murcia (Spain) set up an Inter-Police and Social Cooperation Against Hate Crimes (CISDO) project with the goal to enhance the capabilities of law enforcement agencies and civil society organisations to prevent, identify, mediate and combat hate crimes, including racist and xenophobic incidents. A distinctive feature of this project is the establishment of Communities of Practice (COPRAS), which bring together police officers, civil society members and victims of hate crimes to share experiences and develop strategies for addressing these issues.

In London (UK), the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) works with City Hall’s Online Hate Crime Hub and the UK Home Office to train officers to detect and counter hate-based narratives and disinformation that could incite violence. Training modules include recognising online extremism and understanding the tactics used by hate groups to manipulate information.

8. Address Hate Speech that Targets Local Elected Leaders and City Councils

Hate speech against public officials and city councils undermines the democratic process by delegitimising elected leaders and public servants. Local governments need to take specific measures to protect officials and city councils from harassment, maintain the dignity of public service and emphasise that democracy relies on civil engagement and dialogue. Local governments can support officials and councils targeted by hate speech by establishing clear policies that condemn such behaviour and provide legal and institutional support to address it. Offering training on digital security, mental health resources and tools for managing harassment helps build resilience among officials. Training can also include strategies for managing differences and handling hate speech constructively, as well as how to deal with angry residents who seek to disrupt public meetings.

Local councils need to find proactive and creative ways to confront community tensions and conflicts in a safe and respectful way in order to enhance the culture of dialogue and tolerance both in their public meetings and in the city more broadly. Measures to consider may include:

• Adopting clear protocols for maintaining order during meetings, which allow the council to handle disruptive, threatening or violent behaviour and ensuring the smooth conduct of proceedings. This could include establishing rules for removing individuals who engage in such behaviour, preparing in advance for contentious topics, as well as conducting the meeting online or using technology for physical distancing while still listening.
• Engaging relevant stakeholders to better understand symbols or language associated with hate or extremist groups to anticipate potential disruptions.
• Responding promptly and firmly to hate speech during meetings, denouncing hateful rhetoric regardless of which individual or groups are being targeted, , and reaffirming the community’s commitment to inclusivity and tolerance.
• Following established protocols when handling disruptive or dangerous incidents, including involving law enforcement if necessary.
• Familiarising themselves with current issues, while resisting the temptation to take a stand on divisive global issues that impact the city’s diverse communities differently.   

Below are a few examples of steps cities have taken to prevent and mitigate the impact of hate speech targeting city councils:

• In Costa Mesa (California, USA), the City Council adopted rules that prohibit disorderly conduct, including the use of profane language or obscene gestures.
• In Canada, following disturbances at a number of council meetings, a Working Group on Responsible Conduct was formed, with members from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the Province of British Columbia, and the Local Government Management Association. The Working Group provides training and education for recently elected municipal politicians on how to conduct themselves and focus on the work of local government. Training includes a short online course that involves making decisions based on real-life scenarios, a guide to help local governments deal with conduct issues and a database of external resources providing coaching and guidance.

The UK Local Government Association has collected different case studies of how local governments across Britain have dealt with hate speech and extremism, including the work of Birmingham City Council with local schools, Bristol City Council’s partnerships with the local Muslim community and the Greenwich Borough’s use of football to foster greater community cohesion and thereby lessen the potential influence of harmful rhetoric.

9. Take Advantage of Existing Training and Capacity-Building Resources and other Learning Opportunities

Mayors and local governments should take advantage of existing training and capacity building initiatives in order to benefit from available resources, strategies and insights to tackle shared challenges of hate speech more effectively.

Examples of such initiatives or resources include:

• The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, and its associated resources, including notes on gender-based hate speech and engaging religious actors to counter hate speech, provide helpful guidance for cities wishing to take action.
• The European Coalition of Cities Against Racism (ECCAR) has compiled learning outcomes for city administrations and their partners for combating hate speech on local levels in ‘10 Steps Cities Can Take to Combat Hate Speech, drawing also from their Guidebook on Local Actions against Anti-Muslim Racism.
• In response to needs expressed by many city governments, and in partnership with representatives from cities, media, the tech sector, civil society and academia, German Marshall Fund (GMF) Cities and the Melbourne Centre for Cities developed the Disinformation in the City: Response Playbook to guide disinformation response in the unique city context.
• The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has developed a Media and Information Literacy in Cities to support cities to become hubs for media and information literacy learning, including through multi-actor engagement and physical and virtual activities in order to cultivate informed, critical and engaged citizens, and fostering inclusive, resilient and sustainable communities for all.
• The UK Local Government Association published Debate Not Hate: Ending Abuse in Public Life for Councillors to support councillors with these issues, identifying principles for councils to consider, and top tips and good practice case studies to help councils better support councillors prevent and handle abuse and intimidation.
• PeaceTech Lab’s Countering Hate Action Network (CHAN) of 13 countries in Africa and the Middle East developed a training manual with strategies, best practices and learning modules for countering hate speech.  
• The Center for Countering Digital Hate’s STAR Framework is an additional resource for policymakers to combat online harms and fortify democracy in the digital age. 
• Organised by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), which hosts the Strong Cities Network, in partnership with German companies, the Business Council for Democracy (BC4D) teaches employees about the spread of hate speech, targeted disinformation and conspiracy theories and what they can do to counter online harms and help protect those around them.
• To build young people’s resilience to online harms, ISD’s Be Internet Citizens – a programme delivered in partnership with YouTube – works with teenagers aged 13 years and over to bolster their resilience to a range of online harms including hate and disinformation, while empowering them to become well-informed and engaged citizens in the digital era. 

Crucially, collaboration between cities – including sharing information and concerns about how global crises may be impacting their communities – can enhance city preparedness as it allows cities to share insights into a crisis that may have not yet reached or emerged in other cities. By sharing successes and challenges, local governments can refine their strategies and adopt innovative practices to address the ever-evolving nature of online harms. Strong Cities regularly convenes mayors and other local government officials to share practical examples and lessons learned in city-led efforts to prevent hate and polarisation.

Conclusion

The impact of off- and online hate speech on local communities and cities is profound, affecting everything from public trust and democratic participation to social cohesion and safety. While these are global challenges increasingly fuelled by global crises, their impacts are increasingly local, with mayors and local governments finding themselves on the front lines. The roles of local leaders and governments in preventing and mitigating the effects of hate speech on their communities must not be overlooked. Through promoting education and media literacy, fostering inclusivity, consistently condemning all forms and manifestations of hate speech in their communities or that targets their residents, enforcing policies against hate speech and collaborating with national governments, academic institutions and community organisations, local leaders and governments can help protect their residents from the corrosive effects of false narratives and dehumanising rhetoric. Ultimately, creating resilient communities that prioritise accurate information, inclusivity, tolerance and civility will ensure a healthier, safer and more cohesive city; one where hate is less likely to take root, let alone spread.

Resources 

• Online Hate: Misinformation and Fake News, Stop Hate UK (living resource)
• Global Crises, Local Impacts series, Strong Cities Network, 2024
• How the Upcoming Election is an Opportunity to Improve Local Civil Discourse, National League of Cities, October 2024
• Promoting Community Civility to Reduce Local Political Violence, National League of Cities, August 2024
• Narratives of Hate: Post-7 October Antisemitism and Anti-Muslim Hate on Social Media, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, June 2024
• A Guide for City-Led Response, Strong Cities Network, updated May 2024
• A Guide for Cities: Preventing Hate, Extremism & Polarisation, Strong Cities Network, updated May 2024
• A Guide for Mayors: Preventing and Responding to Hate, Extremism and Polarisation, Strong Cities Network, updated May 2024 
• State of Hate 2024: Pessimism, Decline and a Rising Radical Right, Hope Not Hate, April 2024
• Navigating Local Impacts of Global Crises: Ten Considerations for Mayors and Cities – Lessons from the Israel-Gaza Crisis, Strong Cities Network, December 2023
• Study on Preventing and Combating Hate Speech in Times of Crisis, Council of Europe, November 2023
• Guidebook on Local Actions against Anti-Muslim racism, ECCAR, September 2023
• Dangerous Speech: A Practical Guide, Dangerous Speech project, April 2021
• Measures and strategies for combating hate speech at the European level – an overview, Friedrich Ebert, Stiftung, 2020

Contact

For more information on Strong Cities’ work in support of city-led efforts to address hate speech, please contact Lara Petricevic, Director for Global Engagement, Strong Cities Network at [email protected]. 

 

Related Resources

Explore other similar resources

Policy Briefs

Managing Migration: City-Led Approaches for Being an Inclusive, Welcoming and Socially-Cohesive City

Read more

Policy Briefs

Creating Safe, Cohesive and Resilient Cities through Urban Planning & Design: Ten Considerations for Mayors and Local Governments

Read more

Policy Briefs

National-Local Cooperation: A Pillar of City-Led Prevention of Hate, Extremism and Polarisation – A Practice Update

Read more

Policy Briefs

City-Led Prevention of Hate, Extremism and Polarisation:  Leveraging Local Youth Councils  

Read more