Hate Speech Laws Weaponized Against Critics of Pashinyan
Hate speech laws were designed to protect vulnerable groups. In Armenia, they're being used to jail critics of the prime minister.
Armenia’s hate speech framework, codified in Articles 329 and 330 of the Criminal Code, represents one of the starkest inversions of legal intent in modern authoritarianism. These articles were designed to protect vulnerable groups, minorities defined by immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or refugee status, from hatred and violence motivated by those characteristics. Yet under the current interpretation, Armenia’s courts have redefined them as shields for political leaders. Rafael Ishkhanyan explains the mechanism: the law lists protected characteristics, including an open-ended reference to “other personal or group characteristics.” Prosecutors and judges have seized on “political views” to argue that criticism of Pashinyan’s actions constitutes discrimination against his political views as if they were an immutable identity.
The absurdity runs deep. When a blogger made harsh rhetorical remarks about Pashinyan, authorities arrested him under hate speech law, then switched the charge to hooliganism when the first charge became untenable. The Hakob Grigoryan precedent, upheld by Armenia’s Court of Cassation in April 2026, cemented this distortion: a history teacher was convicted for making violent remarks about Pashinyan in a seventh-grade classroom. His conviction was upheld on the grounds that his remarks, motivated by disagreement with Pashinyan’s political conduct, constituted a public call for violence based on a protected characteristic.
Meanwhile, a Pink Armenia report found not a single criminal case brought under Articles 329 and 330 against hate speech targeting LGBT Armenians, despite Armenia’s traditionally conservative society. The double application is deliberate: these laws protect the ruling party and Pashinyan specifically, while actual vulnerable populations remain uncovered.
Transcript
Rafael: were already working on the report on the systemic issue of the application of hate Rafael: speech laws when Arthur Osipyan was arrested and charged with that and as I Rafael: understand the main charge, and the other two are supplementary just to make Rafael: the you know the to make it seem like that there's you know he's a very dangerous Rafael: criminal charge with three counts or whatsoever Rafael: What he did basically was charged for Facebook posts when he criticized Pashinyan Rafael: and there were some, Rafael: let's say, Rafael: rhetorical threats in it, Rafael: which is a very common thing nowadays in Armenian politics and, Rafael: you know, Rafael: in other political discourse. Rafael: So they labeled it as hate speech. Rafael: So that is what, Rafael: there's this thing, Rafael: what we were working on before, Rafael: and Osipyan just cemented this systemic issue. Rafael: Hate speech law Rafael: is about protecting vulnerable groups. Rafael: That's the idea of hate speech. Rafael: You cannot hate someone personally and say that it's a hate speech. Rafael: It is not. Rafael: It's just a personal animosity. Rafael: If you hate someone because of their color, Rafael: because of their religion, Rafael: because of their minority status, Rafael: that is something that makes them vulnerable at the same time, Rafael: something that is an important part of their identity, Rafael: then there is hate speech. Rafael: In Armenia, the only characteristic that's been Rafael: say in 99% cases, Rafael: because there are very few exceptions, Rafael: very few, Rafael: is so-called political views,