Available in:
Fadel Abdulghany
At a moment when thousands of survivors of the Assad regime’s crimes are looking forward to a glimmer of hope for a new era, some media outlets are surprising us by hosting figures known for their loyalty to the regime and their justification of the violations that have pierced the hearts of victims over many years. This scene is provocative to the bereaved and carries a real threat to civil peace, as it may push some victims toward revenge in the absence of fair procedures that provide them with the desired redress.
Perhaps the pivotal issue we are addressing here is the need to address the phenomenon of hosting these supporters and justifiers of the regime’s crimes on talk shows or cultural platforms, especially after the collapse of the Assad regime’s authoritarian authority and the beginning of a new phase that is supposed to pave the way for transitional justice. Tolerating the justification of crimes and violence that have affected broad segments of society only deepens divisions and slows the process of desired justice. It is now more necessary than ever to exercise caution in selecting guests and to assume professional and ethical responsibility to ensure respect for the dignity of victims and chart the path to a more just and balanced future.
For years, Syria has witnessed gross human rights violations at the hands of the Assad regime, including enforced disappearance, torture, and extrajudicial killings. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights’ database, the Assad regime and its allies were responsible for nearly 90% of these documented violations.
In light of this painful reality, the importance of transitional justice emerges. This justice system encompasses a set of mechanisms and measures aimed at achieving accountability, uncovering the truth, providing reparations, and institutional reform to ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.
Because the media is a key pillar in both the conflict and post-conflict phases, its role goes beyond news coverage. It also serves as a pivotal tool in either calming public opinion and bridging social rifts, or in reproducing narratives that justify crimes and create a climate for the emergence of new hatreds.
Hence, responsible engagement by media platforms becomes a fundamental pillar for redressing victims’ rights and strengthening the transitional process toward a state that respects human rights and provides genuine guarantees against a relapse into the cycle of violations.
The central problem lies in the fact that the transitional process should not be limited to prosecuting the direct perpetrators who committed the most horrific violations against civilians, but must extend to include those who supported and legitimized these violations, whether through material, political, or media support.
Justifying the crimes committed by the Assad regime is not merely a “dissenting opinion” that can be treated lightly; it is an active engagement in reproducing narratives that dehumanize victims and confer a false legitimacy on their grievances.
From this perspective, keeping silent about these individuals or inviting them to appear in the media without clear accountability is a further denial of the suffering endured by millions. It sends a false message to society that simply changing the top of the political pyramid is sufficient to achieve justice, while the supporting networks remain immune from accountability.
On a psychological and social level, hosting figures who justify crimes directly provokes the feelings of millions of victims and their families, potentially generating a new wave of anger and distrust in any transitional process and opening the door to dangerous possibilities of retaliatory violence.
When a survivor sees that those who previously justified their killing or torture are still given a platform to promote their narrative, this undermines their confidence in the credibility of both state institutions and the media, undermining the chances of establishing an environment conducive to reconciliation.
The transition of societies from an era of tyranny to a period of justice is not limited to punishing those directly involved. Rather, it requires dismantling the cultural and intellectual systems that allowed violations to be tolerated and justified before public opinion.
With regard to civil peace, turning a blind eye to this segment of society and justifying their presence in the public sphere without any genuine apology or genuine contribution to redressing the harm instills a sense of injustice among the victims and fuels feelings of revenge that could threaten to undermine social cohesion altogether.
Transitional justice, while requiring the truth to be revealed and a public acknowledgment of responsibility, also seeks to restore the social fabric through tangible steps that give survivors the sense that their dignity has been restored and that society as a whole stands with the truth, not with the powerful and justifying individuals who were an integral part of the system of oppression.
In this context, implementing the principle of non-impunity, with its legal, ethical, and social dimensions, is a safety valve that ensures the containment of the victims’ feelings of bitterness and frustration, and paves the way for a political and societal phase that fundamentally respects human rights, rather than simply changing the names or symbols of leaders.
Supporting Arguments and Evidence
- Legal Foundations
- Limits on Freedom of Expression and Crimes of Justification: The foundation of international human rights law is that every person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as stipulated in Article (19) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, this same article recognizes the possibility of imposing specific restrictions on this right, provided that such restrictions are necessary, proportionate, and protect the public interest, particularly in cases of incitement to violence or justification of international crimes.
Thus, justification of crimes against humanity or war crimes cannot be considered to fall within the protected freedoms; rather, it is a violation that increases the suffering of victims and threatens societal peace.
- International precedents in criminalizing glorification or denial: Some European experiences have seen strict laws criminalizing the denial of crimes associated with totalitarian regimes. These legislative steps are based on the conviction that failure to address the denial or glorification of serious crimes creates a fertile environment for the reproduction of violence and oppression. Accordingly, these legal models may serve as inspiration for a transitional Syrian situation, with the aim of formulating legislative texts that criminalize the glorification or justification of the brutal acts committed by the Assad regime.
- Moral and Social Pillars
- Respecting the Dignity of Victims and Preserving Community Peace: Protecting the dignity of victims is an uncompromising moral and humanitarian principle, as well as a crucial tool for restoring trust within society. Survivors feel that their suffering is acknowledged and appreciated, which contributes to calming their internal anger and preventing any retaliatory tendencies. Failure to take legal or moral action against those who justify crimes implicitly allows the assault on the victims’ humanity to continue.
- The Importance of Early Reparations for Moral Harm: Establishing transitional justice courts or truth and investigation commissions may take a long time, but victims cannot wait for years to see yesterday’s criminals and their supporters roaming the public space without any sense of responsibility.
Therefore, public apologies, material and moral compensation, and the restoration of rights to their owners are essential measures that should be implemented early on. They constitute an explicit acknowledgement of the crime and an acceptance of the greater part of its moral burden. These steps are the foundation of civil peace and pave the way for a more stable future by sending a clear message that the era of impunity and glorification of violations is over.
Responding to Objections
“Ignorance”
Some Assad regime loyalists claim they were not fully aware of the extent of the repressive practices, or that they believed official propaganda denying the occurrence of systematic violations. However, this claim of ignorance does not absolve them of moral or legal responsibility, especially given the availability of extensive documentation, testimonies, and evidence documenting these crimes.
Within the framework of transitional justice, individuals who supported the regime or justified its crimes have a duty to self-examine and educate themselves, rather than continuing to deny the facts. It is unacceptable for the excuse of “ignorance” to emerge after the fall of the Assad regime, at a time when reliable information is now available to all. Acknowledging past negligence and ignorance, if accompanied by accepting consequences and responsibilities now, could be a positive step towards restoring community trust.
The Discourse of Revenge
Fear of revenge is a recurring concern among former supporters of the regime, and it may also be a motivating factor for victims themselves if their demands continue to be ignored. However, historical experience shows that the absence of accountability ultimately exacerbates the tendency toward revenge and fuels new cycles of violence.
Conversely, holding accountable those who justify it and the direct perpetrators, along with conciliatory measures such as confession, apology, and compensation, can prevent the desire for revenge and enhance trust among various segments of society.
In this sense, a commitment to transitional justice—with its legal and ethical dimensions—becomes the most important guarantor of societal stability, which can put an end to cycles of violence and move people from the stage of conflict to the stage of recovery and state-building on just and inclusive foundations.
Recommendations and Practical Proposals
1- For the Future Government
- Clear and Strict Legislation: It is essential to enact laws that explicitly criminalize the denial or justification of the Assad regime’s crimes. These texts provide legal cover for holding accountable anyone who engages in justifying acts that amount to crimes against humanity or war crimes. Legislators may benefit from comparative experiences to frame the texts in a manner that takes into account Syrian specificities.
- Incorporating the regime’s crimes into curricula and media programs: Enacting laws is not sufficient without creating public awareness. Therefore, the crimes and atrocities committed by the regime should be included in school and university curricula to ensure that the tragedies of the past are not repeated. Official media programs should also focus on documenting these violations, highlighting the testimonies of victims and their families so that the public is truly aware of what happened.
- Providing Implementation Mechanisms: To ensure that these recommendations do not remain theoretical, a government body or committee should be established to monitor the implementation of laws criminalizing justification and coordinate efforts with the judiciary to prosecute violators. In addition, this body can work to develop educational and cultural policies that contribute to spreading a culture of human rights and accountability.
2 – For the Media
Establish ethical and professional standards: The media is considered a mirror of society and a shaper of public opinion. Therefore, it is not permissible to grant a platform to promoters of discourse that legitimizes violence or downplays the seriousness of documented crimes.
A media code of honor must be established that refuses to host any figure who justifies international crimes, such as those committed by the Assad regime. Institutions must be required to verify the guest’s content, archive, and previous statements.
Produce awareness-raising and educational content: The media has the potential to make a tangible difference in the process of building collective memory. It is the duty of media institutions to utilize documentary reports, documentaries, and talk shows that explain the roots of violations against the Syrian people and highlight their devastating effects on the social fabric. Such content contributes to instilling a culture of accountability and empathy for victims.
Prevent freedom of expression from becoming a gateway to impunity: Media institutions must recognize the fine line between freedom of expression and misleading propaganda that justifies crime. Commitment to objectivity in journalistic coverage requires presenting the facts from reliable sources and combating the spread of lies or any misinformation that exacerbates the suffering of victims.
3- For supporters or justifiers
- Return of looted property: If there are properties or resources seized by supporters during the Assad regime, these properties must be returned to their rightful owners immediately, marking the beginning of an acknowledgement of clear material damages.
- Apology and compensation: A public, written, and video apology is essential, explicitly acknowledging moral responsibility for supporting a regime that committed crimes against its citizens. This apology should include a plan to financially and morally compensate victims. This compensation is part of early reparations that fosters a sense of justice before waiting for lengthy legal proceedings.
- Non-repetition and abstention from public office: Taking responsibility does not stop at a public admission; it also entails a practical commitment not to hold any leadership positions in the future. No one who justified killing or liquidation can assume public office without undergoing genuine accountability. • Abstain from media appearances: Before taking these constructive steps of apologizing, returning property, and compensating victims, there must be a complete abstention from media appearances, as it is unreasonable for the apologists to be given a new platform to promote their harmful narratives without any indication of remorse or assuming their moral and legal responsibilities.
Conclusion
In light of the above, it becomes clear that eliminating the discourse that justifies the Assad regime’s crimes is not merely an emotional demand that reflects the pain of the victims. Rather, it is an essential element of any transitional justice process aimed at ensuring that past tragedies are not repeated and building a more stable future.
The more justifying voices are allowed to emerge and media platforms are used to exonerate the executioner or trivialize his crimes, the greater the risk of reviving a climate of repression and deepening feelings of revenge among those who have suffered and experienced the regime’s woes.
Therefore, I call on readers and segments of public opinion to intensify pressure on governmental and independent media institutions, both Arab and foreign, to seriously adopt these measures and recommendations. Enacting deterrent legislation and introducing strict professional regulations in the media landscape are essential measures to establish a culture of accountability and restore public confidence in the role and ability of the media to advocate for and defend their rights.
Implementing these steps ensures the establishment of a legal foundation for the media’s pivotal role in achieving justice and accountability. This eradicates the culture of impunity for criminals and their supporters, and replaces it with a culture of openness to truth and reconciliation through practical steps. The principle of justice becomes the cornerstone of public governance, and a deep-rooted societal awareness of human rights values grows. Only in such an environment can Syrians take firm steps toward turning the page on tyranny and securing a better future for future generations.
