Hate crime

This article addresses the implications of a new resistance to hate crime legislation that has yet to be addressed in the mainstream legal debate in Canada or the United States. It comes mainly from groups in the US that represent lgbtq communities who are poor and/or of color. These communities are particularly vulnerable to victimization by hate crime yet the groups have repeatedly opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in hate crime legislation. This article addresses the underlying rationale of the new resistance and its implications for the mainstream debate. It begins by undertaking a comparative analysis of hate crime legislation in Canada and the US. It then considers the mainstream legal debate in both countries as well as some statistical data on hate crime. The third section turns to the new resistance as well as emerging data on the connection between victimization and the criminal legal system itself. It then draws on the legal theory of Walter Benjamin to reveal limits in the way that the mainstream legal debate conceptualizes criminalization. The final section of the article considers the implications of Benjamin’s concept of law for both the mainstream debate and the new resistance.

In Australia and New Zealand, the strategies employed by governments to remedy prejudice, intolerance and hatred occur on a continuum; ranging from global mission statements about multiculturalism/ biculturalism, through to the enactment of civil anti-discrimination and anti-vilification legislation. In some jurisdictions, these civil remedies have been extended to criminal codes and sentencing legislation, and enshrined in human rights charters. In the place of a comprehensive outline of each of the nine jurisdictions, case studies from throughout the region are presented as exemplars of the strategies employed and barriers faced in reducing prejudice-related violence. The differences between the Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions belies a common theme that frames the delay in developing legislative responses to hate crime and the paucity of cases to reach the point at which they begin to establish an agreed set of norms and values about the abhorrence of prejudice and hatred. At most turns—whether political or public rhetoric, or legislative and policy development—there is a frontier denial, minimisation and negation of prejudice and hatred.

Criminal law is fragmentary. Nevertheless, it must be his claim to punish equal injustice the same, greater injustice more and lesser injustice less. Otherwise his evaluations threaten to lose traceability and acceptance. The sentencing rule of § 46 II 2 StGB and the criminal offense of incitement to hatred should therefore be adapted to the categories of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG)  and the changed circumstances resulting from digitalization and globalization. Law enforcement agencies and courts should be enabled to consistently punish group-related enmity; this requires a revision of the RiStBV. The general right of personality must not serve as a protective cloak for statements that attack the dignity of others. Criticism of group-related misanthropy must be allowed to be expressed freely and, if necessary, sharply.

Η παρούσα έκδοση αποτελεί μέρος ενός ευρύτερου 18-μηνου σχεδίου με θέμα την Αντιμετώπιση της Ρητορικής, Συμπεριφορών και Εγκλημάτων Μίσους στην Κύπρο (Confronting Hate Speech, Behaviour and Crimes in Cyprus) το οποίο ανέλαβε τοΙνστιτούτο Ερευνών ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΑΣ τον Απρίλιο του 2014 και συγχρηματοδοτείται
από την Ισλανδία, το Λίχτενσταϊν και τη Νορβηγία μέσω του χρηματοδοτικού μηχανισμού EEA GRANTS και από την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία.

Στα πλαίσια του σχεδίου θα υλοποιηθούν μια σειρά από δράσεις, περιλαμβανομένης της παρούσας μελέτης, η οποία στοχεύει σε μια, κατά το δυνατόν, ολοκληρωμένη έρευνα και καταγραφή της έκτασης του προβλήματος της ρητορικής, συμπεριφορών και εγκλημάτων μίσους στο κοινωνικό περιβάλλον της Κύπρου (στην ελληνική και
την τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα). Η μελέτη οριοθετεί το ιστορικό, το σύγχρονο, καθώς και το νομικό πλαίσιο του ζητήματος, αξιοποιώντας δευτερογενή, αλλά και πρωτογενή στοιχεία.

Το δεύτερο στάδιο του σχεδίου περιλαμβάνει το σχεδιασμό και δημιουργία ενός εκπαιδευτικού εργαλείου, απώτερος στόχος του οποίου είναι να καταστεί ένα μέσο για την προώθηση της ανεκτικότητας, της αποδοχής της διαφορετικότητας και
του σεβασμού των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στη νέα γενιά που αποτελεί την πιο ευάλωτη ομάδα του πληθυσμού που βρίσκεται στη διαδικασία της αυτο-ανάπτυξης. Το εργαλείο αυτό θα απευθύνεται ειδικά σε παιδιά ηλικίας 12-14 ετών, μια ηλικία κρίσιμη στον καθορισμό του πλαισίου στάσεων και συμπεριφορών του κάθε ατόμου.

Με την ολοκλήρωση της δημιουργίας του εκπαιδευτικού εργαλείου θα πραγματοποιηθούν μια σειρά από εργαστήρια κατάρτισης εμπλεκόμενων φορέων από τους τομείς της εκπαίδευσης, των ΜΜΕ, των οργανώσεων νεολαίας, των οργανώσεων δασκάλων και καθηγητών, των bloggers, της κοινότητας ΛΟΑΤ και των οργανώσεων μεταναστών, ώστε να δοθούν οι απαραίτητες πληροφορίες και
οδηγίες χρήσης του.

Το τελικό στάδιο του προγράμματος θα προχωρήσει στις δράσεις δημοσιοποίησης του σχεδίου. Η διάδοση του έργου θα είναι πολλαπλή και θα διαρκέσει καθόλη τη διάρκεια του σχεδίου. Για τη μέγιστη διάδοση του σχεδίου ενδεικτικά αναφέρονται κάποιες δράσεις: 1) Παραγωγή βίντεο σποτ 2) Δημιουργία ιστοσελίδας 3) Διάδοση
του εκπαιδευτικού εργαλείου 4) Διάδοση στα κοινωνικά μέσα ενημέρωσης 5) Αρθρογραφία στον Τύπο 6) Ειδική έκδοση του Ενημερωτικού Δελτίου του ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΑ 7) Ραδιοφωνική εκπομπή 8) Ενημερωτικά φυλλάδια 9) Διαφημιστικό υλικό 10) Διαδικτυακή Εκστρατεία Ευαισθητοποίησης του κοινού 11) Διάδοση
μέσα από διαδικτυακά μπλογκ 12) Συνέδριο με θέμα: «Αντιμετώπιση της Ρητορικής, Συμπεριφορών και Εγκλημάτων Μίσους: Η περίπτωση της Κύπρου»

Ευχαριστίες οφείλουμε στον χρηματοδοτικό μηχανισμό EEA Grants και στην Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, η συνχρηματοδότηση των οποίων κατέστησε το σχέδιο αυτό εφικτό.

Using the organizational dimension of the multicontextual model
for diverse learning environments, this study examined the philosophies and perspectives of bias response team leaders at 19 institutions. Through semistructured interviews, administrators described theoretical approaches to bias response work that were primarily educational in nature and that aligned with institutional values. However, in the practice of responding to bias, administrators found themselves employing punitive frameworks, managing institutional public relations, and, on occasion, providing educational efforts. This tension between theory and practice created a balancing act for administrators to manage and multiple groups to which they perceived themselves as accountable.

Мониторинг языка вражды в социальных сетях в Казахстане/ Сост. П.Банников. – Алматы: МЦЖ Medianet, 2017. 80 с. – каз., рус.

Данное издание представляет материалы мониторинга и экспертного анализа использования языка вражды в публикациях лидеров мнений казахстанского сегмента социальной сети Facebook в период с мая по октябрь 2017 года. Издание подготовлено и выпущено при поддержке Офиса Фонда Конрада Аденауэра (Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) в Казахстане.

This report provides a comprehensive review of interventions that are currently being used to combat hate crime in England and Wales. The report complements another piece of work which was commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the causes and motivations of hate crime and we recommend that both of these reports be read together (Walters, Brown and Wiedlitzka 2016). We have divided the report into three parts, the first and second examine the evidence-base for criminalisation, policing, and criminal justice and education-based interventions aimed at tackling hate. Here we pinpoint a number of emerging practices, using case studies, to highlight the ways in which hate-based incidents can be effectively challenged. We note also the limitations in research and offer recommendations for better evidence gathering to support the improved use of such practices. The third part of this report focuses on barriers to the effective management of criminal justice interventions for hate crime. In this final part of the report we set out a list of recommendations to enhance the effective management of hate crime offenders and the prevention of hate crime more generally. These recommendations are based on extensive consultations with research, policy and practitioner experts working in the area of hate crime.

The product of an 18 month empirical study which examined the use of restorative justice for hate crime in the United Kingdom, this book draws together theory and practice in order to examine the causes and consequences of hate crime victimisation. Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Exploring Causes, Repairing Harms also identifies the key process variables within restorative practice that can help to repair the harms of hatred. In doing so, it challenges commonly held conceptions of both 'hate crime' and 'restorative justice' through its use of qualitative research of restorative interventions across the UK.

The study's findings provide original data on the contextual variables that are intrinsic to both the cause and effect of hate-motivated offences, revealing complex socio-cultural and socio-economic factors that are fundamental, both to our understanding of hate crime and to how such incidents can be best resolved. Through meticulous analysis and discussion, the book also provides new information on how restorative processes can be used to repair the harms of hate and challenge the prejudices which give rise to hate-motivated conflicts. The issue of group identity and cultural 'difference' amongst participants of restorative justice is explored and examined through the use of detailed case studies, allowing assessment of whether dialogical barriers to reconciliation can limit the success of restorative processes. In particular, the notion of 'community', a fundamental concept of restorative justice theory and practice, is reconceptualised by exploring both its healing and harming features.

Utilising data from the first study of its kind, Hate Crime and Restorative Justice draws together theoretical assumptions about restorative philosophy and empirical evidence of its use for hate crime to offer a more holistic understanding of how restorative justice can help repair the harms caused by processes of hate, while simultaneously challenging the identity-based prejudices that continue to pervade our multicultural communities.
Readership: Restorative and criminal justice practitioners, police officers and policy makers, as well as scholars of criminology, sociology and criminal justice.

Hate crime and hate speech represent a threat and a damage to the life of individuals, and increase the sense of fear in entire communities. The core values of the EU Treaty, such as the respect for human dignity and human rights, are undermined by hatred. On the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (20 March 2017), the UN human rights (HR) chief reminded to all governments worldwide that they have a legal obligation to stop hate crime and hate speech. According to the UN HR Commissioner, the “politics of division and the rhetoric of intolerance are targeting racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, as well as migrants and refugees”. Moving in this direction does not mean attacking free speech or silencing controversial ideas or criticism, in his view. It is rather a recognition that the right to freedom of expression carries with it
special duties and responsibilities.

Brym's article critically reviews data and the small body of published research on the relationship between antisemitic and anti-Israel attitudes in Canada and internationally with the aim of identifying key questions that Canadian and non-Canadian researchers who are interested in this contentious issue might profitably address. It derives a series of hypotheses from the literature review and discusses methodological approaches to testing them.

ABSTRACT


This article examines and analyses the chequered history of the University of Limerick (UL), its organisational structure, its Mafia culture, and attempts to address how it had become so corrupted and mismanaged, for it never was a simple product of its ex-President, Prof Don Barry’s incompetence or complicity. It also describes the allegations brought forth by several former UL employee whistleblowers and the failure of the 2017 Thorn Report. The overt complicity of the Department of Education and Skills, the inadequacy of the Higher Education Authority’s oversight and the failure of the Irish legal system permitted this illicit Mafia enterprise to flourish in Castletroy, Co Limerick. These malfeasant activities should compel the Minister of Education and Skills to ask how UL’s Mafia activities have gone unchecked for so long, how they were allowed to thrive for the better part of this decade in this western province of Ireland and duly appoint a State Visitor under the University Act 1997.


Key Words: University of Limerick, Whistleblowers, 2017 Thorn Report, Corruption, Hate Crimes, Organisational Mismanagement, Universities Act 1997.

Une analyse des attaques lancées par certains contributeurs des "Mélanges Jean Duvernoy" contre une historiographie récente des hérésies médiévales. L'actuelle remise en cause de la notion unifiante et réifiante de "catharisme" est rejetée sans argumentation convaincante, mais aussi comparée à la falsification de l'histoire du génocide des juifs par les négationnistes...

This systematic study investigates how Luther managed his expositional task. The realm of participation in Salvation unveils Luther's concept of method for expounding the Holy Scriptures. A survey on the past research of Luther's handling Holy Writ evinces that the topic of this study has not yet been dealt with.
From the Primitive Christianity unto Humanism, the history of the doctrine of participation in Salvation reveals many divergences; but nevertheless throughout this long period the comprehension of participation has clearly traceable influence on the concept of the exegetical methods in expounding Scriptures.
Luther adopts several ways of the Fathers in dealing with participation. His concept of the Christian's sharing with Christ is three-dimensional: it is ontological, ethical, and eschatological. The apprehension of the cross of Christ bestows God's being to the believer as participation in Christ, which —according to Luther— is real, works in love, and longs for final perfection. Participation and justification are not conflicting.
Luther understands 'method' as a structural principle or system of order, which assists in clarifying the principle matter. He demands that the rules for expounding Holy Scriptures must be in accordance with the basic character of the Word of Christ. God speaks in His Word, and His entity is present herein. When God speaks, Christ be-comes present. Not mastery of the Word but discipleship of Christ is one of the basic tenets of Luther's methodological thinking. Thus practical connection with Christ and Christian life is of vital importance for his theology of the Word, e.g. in the realm of pastoral care, prayer, meditation, affliction and love. In faith man is unified with the Word. This approach determines both Luther's search for an adequate application of traditional arts like rhetoric and dialectics, and his view on the conventional fourfold sense of Scriptures. He demands scrutiny in explaining the pronouns of the text. In Christian belief the past history of Salvation gains contemporary meaning, which is largely exemplified through Christ as the image of God's grace.
This study shows that participation in Salvation is a basic tenet for Luther's concept of exegetical methods

Although social media has greatly facilitated contact between people, it has provided new opportunities for online bullying and the propagation of Hate speech. How can students be taught about these problems in the classroom and about the consequences of their own actions? The Council of Europe's 'No Hate Speech' movement was established to increase awareness of online hatred. They support workshops on this topic helping disseminate methods to tackle online Hate. This article describes some activities that can easily be used with students to raise awareness of this growing menace.

In the face of longstanding philosophical debates on the nature of hatred and an ever-growing interest in the underlying social-psychological function of group-directed or genocidal hatred, the peculiar affective intentionality of hatred is still very little understood. By drawing on resources from classical phenomenology, recent social-scientific research and analytic philosophy of emotions, I shall argue that the affective intentionality of hatred is distinctive in three interrelated ways: (1) it has an overgeneralizing, indeterminate affective focus, which typically leads to a form of collectivization of the target; (2) short of a determinate affective focus, haters derive the indeed extreme affective powers of the attitude not in reaction to any specific features or actions of the targets or from some phenomenological properties of the attitude but, rather, from the commitment to the attitude itself; (3) finally, in sharing this commitment to hate with others, hatred involves a certain negative social dialectics, robustly reinforces itself and becomes entrenched as a shared habitus.

Section 1 outlines the methodology and approach of this report, and sets out the legal and social context in which hate crimes are committed against LGBT people.
Section 2 assesses the extent and nature of anti-LGBT hate crimes, exploring trends across the Commonwealth and surveying regional and country-specific case examples. Information on the perpetrators of anti-LGBT victimisation is also outlined.
Section 3 examines the impacts that anti-LGBT hate crimes have on individuals, communities and society. Commonalities and differences in experiences across different sectors of LGBT communities are described.
Section 4 of the report concludes with recommendations on how Commonwealth states should legislate against anti-LGBT hate crime, and why statutory agencies must implement monitoring tools to ensure that anti-LGBT victimisation becomes visible and is measured.

Purpose: The prevalence of online hate material is a public concern, but few studies have analyzed the extent to which young people are exposed to such material. This study investigated the extent of exposure to and victimization by online hate material among young social media users.

Design/methodology/approach: The study analyzed data collected from a sample of Finnish Facebook users (n = 723) between the ages of 15 and 18. Analytic strategies were based on descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Findings: A majority (67%) of respondents had been exposed to hate material online, with 21% having also fallen victim to such material. The online hate material primarily focused on sexual orientation, physical appearance, and ethnicity and was most widespread on Facebook and YouTube. Exposure to hate material was associated with high online activity, poor attachment to family, and physical offline victimization. Victims of the hate material engaged in high levels of online activity. Their attachment to family was weaker, and they were more likely to be unhappy. Online victimization was also associated with the physical offline victimization.

Social implications: While the online world has opened up countless opportunities to expand our experiences and social networks, it has also created new risks and threats. Psychosocial problems that young people confront offline overlap with their negative online experiences. When considering the risks of Internet usage, attention should be paid to the problems young people may encounter offline.

Originality: This study expands our knowledge about exposure to online hate material among users of the most popular social networking sites. It is the first study to take an in-depth look at the hate materials young people encounter online in terms of the sites where the material was located, how users found the site, the target of the hate material, and how disturbing users considered the material to be.

There have been few attempts to interview UK hate crime perpetrators (Gadd & Dixon 2011 regarding racist offences being a notable exception). The Leicester Hate Studies Centre has carried out a large-scale project into the nature and extent of hate crime, and the impact of
these offences upon victims, families and wider communities (Chakraborti et al. 2014). It contains a section on who the perpetrators were in terms of age, ethnicity and number as reported by victims, but no interviews with offenders. Investigation into the personal motivation of specifically Anti-Muslim1 hate crime perpetrators has not even begun yet. This constitutes a serious gap in our knowledge and is the basis for this proposal. We need to know whether the motivations of specifically Anti-Muslim offenders are the same, or similar to, those who commit racist, disablist and homophobic crime-and indeed if they are mainly
the same people or a class of offender apart. This will be important in influencing policing, the criminal justice system particularly in relation to sentencing, and government policy regarding its influence on the public perception of Islam and British Muslims, for example through such policies as Prevent.

Selvityksessä tarkastellaan sitä, miten viharikokset tunnistetaan rikosprosessin eri vaiheissa, miten tieto mahdollisesta vihamotiivista välittyy poliisilta syyttäjälle ja miten se vaikuttaa tuomioon. Selvityksessä on seurattu vuonna 2017 poliisin tietoon tulleita viharikoksia esitutkinnasta syyttäjälle ja käräjäoikeuteen.

Selvityksen aineistossa viharikoksia oli kahta päätyyppiä: sellaisia, joissa syyttäjä oli vaatinut rangaistuksen koventamista vihamotiivin vuoksi ja sellaisia, joissa vihamotiivi kuuluu rikoksen tunnusmerkistöön. Aineistoon kuuluvista tapauksista käräjäoikeus oli antanut maaliskuuhun 2021 mennessä langettavan tuomion 92 viharikoksesta. Vihamotiivin vuoksi rangaistusta kovennettiin 12 tapauksessa. Vihamotiivi kuului rangaistuksen tunnusmerkistöön 80 langettavaan tuomioon johtaneessa viharikoksessa.

Selvityksessä havaittiin, että vihamotiivin tunnistamisessa ja käsittelyssä on puutteita rikosprosessissa. Ratkaisuiksi ongelmiin esitetään mm. viharikosluokituksen pakollista käyttöä rikosilmoituksen kirjauksen yhteydessä, esitutkintayhteistyön tehostamista ja poliisin kuulusteluohjeistuksen päivittämistä.

Julkaisun sisällöt ovat täysin tekijän vastuulla, eivätkä ne välttämättä edusta Tiedolla vihaa vastaan -hanketta rahoittavan Euroopan komission tai oikeusministeriön näkemyksiä.

Hate and fear are negative but very powerful influences on human beings. Islamophobia is hate for and fear of Islam. Like every human-feeling hate, fear and anger are not evil in themselves. After all we should hate crime, fear consequences off ill deeds and feel anger on injustice. But should we hate and fear Islam? If yes, then what in Islam should we fear and if no, then those who do hate Islam – why they do so? Is there a way-out of this?

Η συγγραφή της παρούσας έκθεσης εντάσσεται στα πλαίσια της συνεργασίας της Accept-ΛΟΑΤ Κύπρου με το Ινστιτούτο Ερευνών ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΑΣ (ΙΝΕΠ) για την υλοποίηση σχεδίου με θέμα την Αντιμετώπιση της Ρητορικής, Συμπεριφορών και Εγκλημάτων Μίσους στην Κύπρο (Confronting Hate Speech, Behaviour and Crimes in Cyprus). Το σχέδιο αποτελεί πρωτοβουλία του ΙΝΕΠ και συγχρηματοδοτείται από τον Χρηματοδοτικό Μηχανισμό EEA GRANTS και την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία (ΚΔ).

Ως η μεγαλύτερη και μόνη εγγεγραμμένη Ελληνοκυπριακή οργάνωση που δραστηριοποιείται με στόχο την ισότητα και ισοτιμία των μη-ετεροφυλόφιλων ατόμων, καθώς και των ατόμων εκείνων των οποίων ο αυτοπροσδιορισμός ταυτότητας φύλου αμφισβητεί τη φυσικοποίηση του άκαμπτου δίπολου «αρσενικό – θηλυκό», η Accept-ΛΟΑΤ Κύπρου έχει αναλάβει τη διεκπεραίωση του τμήματος του προαναφερθέντος έργου που επικεντρώνεται στην κυπριακή κοινότητα λεσβιών, ομοφυλόφιλων, αμφισεξουαλικών και τρανς (ΛΟΑΤ) ατόμων, αφού αυτή διαχρονικά αποτελεί στόχο ρητορικής, συμπεριφορών και εγκλημάτων μίσους.

• ΔΟΜΗ & ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΟ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΘΕΣΗΣ
Η παρούσα έκθεση αποτελείται από τρία κύρια μέρη. Στο πρώτο μέρος, βάσει της υφιστάμενης σχετικής βιβλιογραφίας, παρατίθεται μια σύντομη ιστορική αναδρομή του φαινομένου της ομοφοβίας και τρανσφοβίας στην Κύπρο. Αντλώντας από διεθνείς και τοπικές σχετικές μελέτες, το δεύτερο μέρος επικεντρώνεται στη σύγχρονη Κυπριακή πραγματικότητα. Καταγράφει το πρόβλημα της ομοφοβίας και τρανσφοβίας όπως αυτό
εκδηλώνεται στην Κύπρο του σήμερα. Περαιτέρω, αναζητά τα αίτια της συνεχιζόμενης εκδήλωσης του φαινομένου μέσω της εξέτασης του ρόλου που διαδραματίζουν: α) οι κυρίαρχες κοινωνικές στάσεις και αντιλήψεις, β) οι εγχώριοι πολιτικοί και άλλοι θεσμικοί ιθύνοντες και γ) τα ίδια τα ΛΟΑΤ άτομα σε σχέση με το υπό εξέταση φαινόμενο. Το τρίτο μέρος αποτελεί μια σύντομη ανασκόπηση της Κυπριακής ΛΟΑΤ πολιτικής και ακτιβισμού. Περιγράφει και αξιολογεί την αποτελεσματικότητα της άσκησης πίεσης (lobbying)
και των δράσεων των δύο φάσεων του Κυριακού κινήματος ΛΟΑΤ – 1979 μέχρι 2007 και 2007 μέχρι σήμερα – σε σχέση με την αντιμετώπιση της ομοφοβίας και της τρανσφοβίας. Ακόμα, μέσω της σύγκρισης του υφιστάμενου ευρωπαϊκού και εγχώριου νομοθετικού πλαισίου, περιγράφει και αξιολογεί τη στάση και τη δράση (ή αδράνεια) της ΚΔ σε σχέση με την αντιμετώπιση του φαινομένου. Η έκθεση καταλήγει με την παράθεση των συμπερασμάτων που προκύπτουν.

Since the increase in number of hate crimes during the last decade, there has been a sense of urgency to respond to the problem of hate violence in Turkey. The purpose of the research was to examine relations between homophobic ideologies and the perceptions of liability of perpetrators and victims of hate crime based on sexual orientation. Data were collected from 281 university students by using hate crime vignettes and questionnaires. Consistent with our predictions, participants perceived the victims in the sexually biased hate crime vignettes as more liable than the victims in unspecified crime vignette. Participants reported the victims based on sexual orientation would have avoided the danger more than the victims in unspecified vignette. Our findings provide additional insight into attitudes and beliefs leading tolerance or hostility toward the victims of hate crimes.

Abstract of edition:
Across the European Union, LGBTI people face discrimination and violence based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics. Most incidents are not reported which impedes the possibility to investigate hate crimes and prosecute offenders. Lack of reports renders the problem of anti-LGBTI hate crimes invisible to the public and may prevent authorities from acknowledging and addressing the problem. As a result, victims often suffer in silence and their rights may not be fully respected. By reviewing the legal and policy frameworks and analyzing the institutional deficiencies in reporting and recording anti-LGBTI hate crime and access to victim support in ten EU countries, this report sheds much needed light on the obstacles in the access to justice, faced by victims of anti-LGBTI hate crimes in the EU.

Summary of Chapter for Greece:
- There are several new measures and the legal framework is stronger than in the past; however, they are still not implemented as many of the provisions envisaged require reform of existing structures and procedures.
- The phenomenon of anti-LGBTQI is still rather controversial in Greece and creates conflict.
- There is a significant lack of expertise in recognizing and reporting, as well as supporting victims within a holistic model.
- Specialized training was acknowledged as needed in most parts of the research; as there is, indeed, a lack of knowledge of the conceptual framework of anti-LGBTQI hate crime.
- Underreporting is still a problem in Greece. Significant efforts have been made to improve this but much remains to be done.
- There is an absence of standardized procedures that are realistic and capable of implementation.
- There are a number of very good practices through which support is provided and underreporting is minimized, mostly provided by civil society organizations. These could be used as examples by the State, and applied to official services.
- State agencies and non-governmental reporting centers are creating specific protocols for supporting anti-LGBTQI hate crime victims in order to avoid secondary victimization and ensure long-term protection.
- A strong cooperation strategy is needed in order to ensure adequate recording of cases.
- There is a need to increase the visibility of services as well as the necessity [or impact] of them in order to highlight [and/or combat] the phenomenon.
- Official data collection on anti-LGBTQI hate crimes was absent until recently. In order to deal with the lack of official data and coordinate the different civil society reporting actors an initiative was undertaken by the UN Refugee Agency and the (Greek) National Commission for Human Rights. Today, Greek police record hate crimes more systematically, but there is still room for improvement.

This publication was produced as part of the project "Come Forward: Empowering and Supporting Victims of Anti-LGBT Hate Crimes", co-funded by the REC Programme (2014 – 2020) of the EU.

The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the publication lies entirely with the author(s).

Hate crime or Bias-motivated crime is a crime where the victim gets victimized because of his/her connection or membership to a certain social group. This study assessed hate crime in the context of France and Ireland and tried to find out their legal differences, causes, trends and reporting procedure. The result implemented that both of the countries have some protective measures to handle hate crimes but not entirely to address the problem. France has anti-racism and anti-defamation law and Ireland has the constitutional right to equality. Both of the countries face same type of hate crime according to ODIHR & Human rights watch. Focusing on the Anti-racism and Anti-Semitism regulations are the largest part of their hate crime awareness. This study focuses on the true scenario of hate crime among these two countries so possible comparison and identical mutuality can be found out.

Η ρατσιστική βία είναι φαινόμενο που προηγήθηκε της κοινωνικοοικονομικής κρίσης, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη σχετικές αναφορές από ΜΚΟ και ΜΜΕ. Τα αίτια της θα πρέπει να αναζητηθούν (και) σε διαχρονικά φαινόμενα όπως η ρητορική μίσους από θεσμικούς παράγοντες, οι αδυναμίες του εκπαιδευτικού συστήματος, η διαχρονική ατιμωρησία περιστατικών αυθαιρεσίας της ΕΛ.ΑΣ., η αναπαραγωγή στερεοτύπων από ΜΜΕ και όχι μόνο στον «ανταγωνισμό» μεταξύ «αυτοχθόνων» και «ξένων» για τις παροχές του συρρικνωμένου κοινωνικού κράτους και της μείωσης των θέσεων εργασίας λόγω της κρίσης. Επίσης, η απουσία ενός κεντρικού, εθνικού συστήματος καταγραφής της ρατσιστικής βίας, δεν επιτρέπει την ανάδειξη της πλήρους έκτασης και διαχρονικής εξέλιξης του φαινομένου.

Hate crime laws in both Canada and the United States purport to promote equality using the language of antidiscrimination law. National criminal codes in both countries authorize enhanced punishment for crimes motivated by “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity” or “gender expression.” Cities and states in the United States have also adopted hate crime laws, some of which denounce both homophobic and trans-phobic crimes. Hate crime penalty enhancement laws have been applied by courts in both Canada and the United States to establish a growing jurisprudence. In both countries, moreover, other hate crime laws contribute to official legal knowledge by regulating hate speech, hate crime statistics, and conduct equivalent to hate crimes in schools, workplaces, and elsewhere. Yet, despite the proliferation of hate crime laws and jurisprudence, governmental officials do not control all legal knowledge about hate crimes. Sociological “others” attend criminal sentencing proceedings and provide support to hate crime victims during prosecutions, but they also frame their own unofficial inquiries and announce their own classification decisions for hate-related events. In both Canada and the United States, nongovernmental groups contend both inside and outside official governmental channels to establish legal knowledge about homophobic and trans-phobic hate crimes. In two comparable Canadian and American cities, similar groups monitor and classify homophobic and trans-phobic attacks using a variety of information practices. Interviews with representatives of these groups reveal a relationship between the practices of each group and hate crime laws at each site. The results support one principal conclusion. The availability of local legislative power and a local mechanism for public review are key determinants of the sites and styles of nongovernmental contention about hate crimes. Where police gather and publish official hate crime statistics, the official classification system serves as both a site for mobilization, and a constraint on the styles of contention used by nongovernmental groups. Where police do not gather or publish hate crime statistics, nongovernmental groups are deprived of the resource represented by a local site for social contention, but their styles of contention are liberated from the subtle influences of an official hate crime classification system.

Autor se u radu bavi pitanjem preventivnih efekata člana 54a Krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije, kojim je propisana obaveza uzimanja kao otežavajuće okolnosti prilikom odmeravanja kazne kada je krivično delo učinjeno iz mržnje zbog stvarne ili pretpostavljene pripadnosti žrtve grupi koju odlikuje neko od zajedničkih ličnih svojstava propisanih u ovom članu. U teoriji, praksi, pa i široj javnosti, ovaj institut se kolokvijalno naziva zločinom iz mržnje i u krivično zakonodavstvo Republike Srbije uveden je 2012. godine kroz pomenuti član. Uzevši u oblik specifičnosti cilja krivičnopravnog instituta zločina iz mržnje, a koje se pre svega ogledaju u prevenciji takvih zločina, autor u radu analizira preventivne aspekte modela tzv. zločina iz mržnje koje je Republika Srbija implementirala u svoje krivično zakonodavstvo, iznoseći svoje konstatacije o ovom pitanju.

Ključne reči: zločin iz mržnje, prevencija, krivično pravo, sankcije.

This paper aims to address the problem of hate on the Internet. It is opened with a definition of hate speech. Then it discusses hate speech prior to the Internet, during the Internet’s early days and at present time. The paper explains some of the ways that hate groups utilise the Internet and their purposes in doing so, examining the content and the functions of hate sites as well as the agenda of hate mongers. Under examination are the issues of propaganda, targeting children and youth, incitement and blood libels. The article is based in the main on a close study of dozens of hate websites.

Σκοπός του Οδηγού αυτού είναι η έγκυρη πληροφόρηση και καθοδήγηση των ανθρώπων που βίωσαν, βιώνουν ή φοβούνται ότι θα βιώσουν βία ή διάκριση - λόγω της ταυτότητας/έκφρασης φύλου τους ή/και του σεξουαλικού τους προσανατολισμού - αλλά και όλων των επαγγελματιών κοινωνικών φορέων/υπηρεσιών του δημόσιου και ιδιωτικού τομέα, που έρχονται σε επαφή μαζί τους.

Η παρούσα έκδοση αποτελεί μέρος του έργου "Πες το σ' εμάς", το οποίο υλοποιεί η ΜΚΟ Colour Youth - Κοινότητα LGBTQ Νέων Αθήνας με επιχορήγηση από το Πρόγραμμα Επιχορήγησης ΜΚΟ στην Ελλάδα «Είμαστε όλοι Πολίτες», που εντάσσεται στον Χρηματοδοτικό Μηχανισμό του Ευρωπαϊκού Οικονομικού Χώρου Περιόδου 2009 – 2014 και χρηματοδοτείται από την Ισλανδία, το Λιχτενστάιν και τη Νορβηγία. Διαχειριστής Επιχορήγησης του Προγράμματος είναι το Ίδρυμα Μποδοσάκη.

Οι απόψεις που εκφράζονται στην παρούσα έκδοση είναι των συγγραφέων και δεν απηχούν απαραίτητα τις απόψεις του Χρηματοδοτικού Μηχανισμού του ΕΟΧ ή του Ιδρύματος Μποδοσάκη.

An independent briefing document by Dr Farhan Samanani, published to inform discussions at the Cumberland Lodge conference on 'Race in Britain: Inequality, Identity, Belonging', held in November 2018.

Questions about the place of diversity in British society have acquired a new urgency, not least in light of the vote to leave the European Union. In the year that followed the Brexit referendum, reported hate crimes rose by 29%, prompting fears that the vote had given new license to simmering feelings of racial resentment (Achiume 2018). Scholars typically define ‘racism’ as the belief that groups can be defined by certain innate characteristics (Murji and Solomos 2015).

There are numerous examples of recent cases in which victims were abused for being ‘illegal’, or told to ‘go home’, regardless of their citizenship status (Jones et al 2017). The beliefs that underlie these incidents of hate crime – that it is possible to tell whether someone is ‘truly’ British on the basis of superficial markers such as skin-colour, ethnic dress or accent alone – reveal the enduring power of racial thinking in society today. Yet race isn’t the only lens through which minorities in Britain have been understood.

As migrants from across the world have come to settle in Britain, and as communities, policymakers and popular sentiment have adapted to their presence, a range of competing discourses have emerged, to characterise diversity in different ways. Cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, tolerance and nativism are just a few of the prevalent discourses for understanding and discussing diversity in Britain.

Contents

1. Inequality, Identity, Belonging – persistent questions?
2. Contested Histories
3. Discourses of Race, Migration and Belonging Today
4. Structures of Belonging
5. New Identities

Much of the academic, practitioner and voluntary sector interest in victims of hate crime have focused upon the impacts of hate crime and the practical and emotional support needs and services for victims. Our own work has been somewhat divergent from this. We were commissioned to identify how hate crime reporting could be improved in a northern town, and made inclusive across different equality groups. We undertook a small scale study that examined individual decision making by hate crime victims in whether or not to report incidents, and how the available reporting arrangements and associated publicity materials affected these decisions (Wong & Christmann, 2008). Somewhat to our surprise, what appeared to be a critical issue in terms of whether or not hate crime policies were likely to succeed was also a much under researched area.

Whilst our own research findings cannot be generalised beyond the study site, it did allow us to test out and consider more thoroughly some of the assumptions implicit in policy developments around hate crime reporting, specifically the policy goal of full reporting. We want to reflect back on these findings and the broader research literature to pose some questions on the adequacy and utility of the current reporting agencies approaches and the general policy direction to hate crime victims.

We believe this has merit because the statutory criminal justice agencies and the voluntary sector are grappling with the challenges of adopting hate crime in its broadest sense, and providing a responsive, effective and victim centred service across markedly different vulnerable groups. Pertinent questions can be asked about what the current policies on hate crime can be expected to achieve given the nature of victim decision making on the critical issue of whether to report their victimisation. We will draw out some implications that the legacy of the Lawrence Inquiry has had for strategic thinking, policy making and make some tentative suggestions on how these might be improved.

We argue something that may be considered heresy among hate crime victimloogy circles and victim campaigning groups; that the current policy message concerning victim reporting does not reflect reality, and risks being discredited. What is required, some 10 years post Lawrence is more nuanced responses and ones which acknowledge: the distance travelled by criminal justice agencies in the intervening years; that the majority of hate crime is manifested as single incidents of harassment (which may not necessarily constitute crimes); and the unlikelihood of full reporting by the public, which realistically fits where the public are in terms of their expectations. In doing so we do not pretend to have any authoritative answers to these issues, but believe the questions are worth posing to prompt a debate between efficacy of response versus a largely unchallenged view of hate crime victimology.