Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:10 pm
Time: 8:10 pm
Results for prejudice
18 results foundAuthor: Tippett, Neil Title: Prevention and Response to Identity-Based Bullying Among Local Authorities in England, Scotland and Wales Summary: The overall aim of the report is to establish the extent and effectiveness of local authorities’ and schools’ actions to prevent and respond to prejudice-based bullying of young people both inside and outside of school, on the grounds of disability, gender, gender identity, race, religion or belief or sexual orientation. Summary of Findings: 1.‘Identity-based’ (or ‘Prejudice-based’) bullying is widespread and continues to blight the lives of many young people, affecting educational attainment and having a long term impact on their life chances. A common cause is children’s, and sometimes teachers’ poor understanding of diversity; 2.Schools (and local authorities) need to know the extent of the problem and reasons for any bullying. Recording incidents of the different types of prejudice-based bullying is therefore crucial. Without the appropriate baseline data it is impossible to know the extent of bullying, or monitor the impact of interventions and progress on tackling the problem, or direct resources where they are most needed. Our survey revealed support for a statutory requirement to record and report incidents of prejudice-based bullying, in order to understand the problem and target action and resources where it is needed most. 3.Greater guidance and support is needed to help schools take action against prejudice-based bullying. Our research shows that guidance plays a crucial role in directing anti-bullying work and focussing attention on particular areas. Central government guidance, such as ‘Safe to Learn’ has been well received and more practical guidance from government and non-government organisations was asked for by some respondents. 4.In order to effectively tackle this form of bullying, specific preventative strategies must be adopted such as a ‘whole school approach’ which considers all the equality strands, and focuses on tackling prejudice. Focus within: whole school policies, equality action plans, assemblies, PHSE and citizenship curriculum. Preventative measures are crucial as bullying of this type is a response to prejudice and may happen due to poor understanding of diversity. Bullying of LGB young people and disabled children, including those with learning difficulties shows a particularly strong relationship to prejudiced attitudes held throughout the school. Details: London: Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2010. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 64: Accessed March 28, 2011 at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/64_identity_based_bullying.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/64_identity_based_bullying.pdf Shelf Number: 121079 Keywords: Bullying (U.K.)DisabilitiesDiscriminationPrejudiceSchool Crime |
Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Title: Discrimination and Hate Crime Against Jews in EU Member States: Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism Summary: Antisemitism is one of the most alarming examples of how prejudice can endure, lingering on for centuries, curbing Jewish people's chances to enjoy their legally guaranteed rights to human dignity, freedom of thought, conscience and religion or non-discrimination. Despite European Union (EU) and Member States' best efforts, many Jews across the EU continue to face insults, discrimination, harassment and physical violence that may keep them from living their lives openly as Jews. Nevertheless, there is little concrete information available on the extent and nature of antisemitism that Jewish people encounter in the EU today - whether at work, in public places, at school or in the media - information critical to policy makers seeking to craft effective solutions to bring an end to such discrimination. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has reported on the available official and unofficial data on antisemitic incidents in its Annual report on Fundamental rights: challenges and achievements, as well as in a separate annual working paper - Antisemitism: Summary overview of the situation in the EU - which presents trends on the available data covering up to 10 years. This provides a long-term view of the developments concerning antisemitic incidents. These reports are part of FRA's body of work on hate crime, shining light on the experiences of various groups such as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons, immigrants and ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities. The available data fail to answer many questions, however, which are of keen interest to policy makers looking to improve responses to antisemitic acts. Effective solutions require information on the types of antisemitic incidents, the context in which they take place and the reasons why many incidents are not reported at all, indeed, why official statistics markedly underestimate the number of antisemitic incidents and the number of people exposed to these acts. Furthermore, even the most basic official statistics on antisemitic incidents are not available in many EU Member States. To close this information gap and facilitate effective solutions, FRA carried out the first-ever survey to collect comparable data across a number of EU Member States on Jewish people's experiences and perceptions of antisemitism, hate crime and discrimination. In the survey, which was conducted in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom, 5,847 self-identified Jewish people took part. The survey was also carried out in Romania, but due to the small number of responses in Romania these results are presented separately in Annex 2 of this report. The survey also provides data on exposure to antisemitic acts against the Jewish community, such as vandalism of Jewish sites or antisemitic messages in the broadcast media or on the internet. Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013-discrimination-hate-crime-against-jews-eu-member-states_en.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013-discrimination-hate-crime-against-jews-eu-member-states_en.pdf Shelf Number: 131695 Keywords: AntisemitismBias-Motivated CrimesDiscriminationHate Crimes (Europe)PrejudiceVandalism |
Author: Amnesty International Title: Because of Who I Am: Homophobia, Transphobia and Hate Crimes in Europe Summary: Although the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people has improved in recent years in some European countries, prejudice, discrimination and hate-motivated violence persist, even in countries where same-sex relationships are relatively accepted and where marriage has been opened to all couples irrespective of their gender and sexual orientation. Because of discrimination, prejudice and violence, many people in Europe continue to hide their sexual orientation and gender identity, including from colleagues, friends, schoolmates and family members. According to a survey across European Union (EU) States recently published by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), almost 70% of the LGBTI respondents had always or often disguised their sexual orientation or gender identity at school. LGBTI individuals can face violence anywhere: on the street, in bars and clubs, even at home - sometimes from family members. An Italian NGO (AGEDO) that provides counselling to parents of LGBTI youth in Palermo described cases where teenagers have been sexually abused by their relatives as well as cases where they have been confined to or banished from their homes or referred to "sorcerers" supposedly to help them "fix" their sexual orientation or gender identity. Violence motivated by the real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim is widespread, although the exact extent cannot be known. According to the FRA, one out of four of the LGBTI individuals surveyed had been attacked or threatened with violence in the past five years. Unfortunately, only a minority of European countries collect comprehensive data on homophobic and transphobic hate crimes. According to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), 13 EU countries collect some kind of data on homophobic hate crimes, while only five collect data on transphobic hate crimes. However, only four of them provided information on these crimes to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in 2011. Hate-motivated violence has a particular detrimental, long-term impact on victims. It also creates a broader climate of fear among LGBTI individuals, groups and communities and, especially when states fail to bring the perpetrators to justice, a pervasive mistrust in authorities. In order to effectively tackle hate crimes on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, authorities need to make improvements in several areas. Currently, there are gaps in legislation in many EU countries, while investigations and prosecutions of crimes with a hate motive are often flawed. There is little support for victims, who in turn may be unwilling to report the crimes to the police, and impunity prevails for the attackers. This briefing identifies such areas with illustrative case studies. It also provides information on homophobic and transphobic hate crimes in these countries and makes a number of recommendations to both national authorities and the EU. Details: London: AI, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2014 at: http://amnesty.ie/sites/default/files/Because%20of%20who%20I%20am.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://amnesty.ie/sites/default/files/Because%20of%20who%20I%20am.pdf Shelf Number: 132602 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimesDiscriminationGays, Violence AgainstHate CrimesHomophobiaPrejudice |
Author: McBride, Maureen Title: What works to reduce prejudice and discrimination? A Review of the evidence Summary: „h This is a review of the international literature and evidence on what measures are considered to be most effective in tackling prejudice. It provides an overview of the key theoretical debates on prejudice reduction, outlines some of the most common interventions, and suggests some lessons that may influence the design of policy interventions in the future. „h The report focuses on high quality empirical studies, a mixture of interventions that were evaluated in 'real world' settings also lab-based psychological experiments. „h The report also reflects on the appropriateness and applicability of such interventions for tackling different types of prejudice in Scotland. This includes exploring some of the key lessons in relation to anti-sectarianism work. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2015. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2015 at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00487370.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00487370.pdf Shelf Number: 137307 Keywords: Bias Discrimination Prejudice |
Author: Maslaha Title: Young Muslims on Trial: A scoping study on the impact of Islamophobia on criminal justice decision-making Summary: The report was funded by Barrow Cadbury Trust as part of the work of its Transition to Adulthood (T2A) programme and the Young Review. The Young Review, published in December 2014, identified an over-representation and a disparity in both treatment and outcome for young African, Caribbean, mixed origin and Muslim men at every stage of the criminal justice process. The report described the treatment of Muslim prisoners as being the result of "at best a lack of cultural competence and at worst prejudice and racist stereotyping." In support of recommendations from The Young Review that a range of practical and powerful tools be developed for future providers to intervene early and reverse this disproportionality, Barrow Cadbury commissioned Maslaha to undergo a scoping exercise to ascertain how criminal justice professionals can be more effective in responding to offending by young Muslim men who come into contact with the criminal justice system (CJS.) Although there has been positive change in policy and practice in recent years in relation to young adults, which includes 'lack of maturity' being considered a mitigating factor in prosecution and sentencing decisions, the growing disproportionality of young BAME men in the system, has raised the question of whether other factors might need to be taken into account. During the course of this scoping exercise we interviewed individuals at a range of bodies and agencies including representatives and employees of: - Probation services - The Law Society - Criminologists - Regional police forces - Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) - Voluntary sector organisations and projects working with young black and/or Muslim men in the CJS. Discussion groups in London and Leicester with young Muslims who have experience of the criminal justice system. This report summarises themes emerging in the interviews, followed by a series of recommendations proposing interventions which we believe could lead to criminal justice professionals having a broader understanding of a young Muslim's life. This could have the potential to deliver more appropriate strategies for responding to offending by young Muslims, in the same way that considering maturity as a mitigating factor improves effectiveness in relation to young adults generally. Details: London: Maslaha, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2016 at: http://www.maslaha.org/sites/default/files/images/Young_Muslims_on_Trial%20%281%29_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.maslaha.org/sites/default/files/images/Young_Muslims_on_Trial%20%281%29_0.pdf Shelf Number: 139009 Keywords: IslamophobiaMuslimsPrejudiceRacismYouthful Offenders |
Author: Scotland. Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion Title: Report of Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion Summary: Recent events in Orlando and, closer to home, following the EU Referendum, demonstrate starkly that hatred and prejudice continue to have very serious consequences for people and communities across society. The Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion was established last year by Scottish Ministers to advise on the current state of these issues in Scotland, and to suggest further steps to tackle these issues and build a Scotland where everyone matters. I have been privileged to undertake this work with my fellow group members. It is worth noting that the Advisory Group has been established some years after the introduction in Scotland of legislation to strengthen protections against hate crime. This is therefore an opportune moment to reflect on the journey Scotland has been on since then, and the impact of policy and legislation nationally on the lives and experiences of individuals and communities locally. The Advisory Group has been busy during its relatively short lifespan. Meetings and focus groups have enabled the Advisory Group to gain a direct understanding of the human cost of prejudice and hate crime in Scotland and its profound impact on personal lives and social cohesion. We were both moved and humbled to listen to many of these stories of trauma and resilience. The meetings underlined that facing prejudice and fear remains part of the everyday life of too many people in Scotland, escalating into direct personal violence and threat. We heard of people routinely abused on the street or on public transport, of people isolated in their own homes because they feared to go out and of verbal and physical abuse ranging from insults and catcalling on a daily basis to being spat on, or molested. We heard stories of bullying at school and in the workplace and of people frightened by the changing news agenda which seemed to blame everyone of one religious group or another. We heard of young people feeling isolated as the only member of a minority in small communities. It was clear to the Advisory Group that much of this experience remains hidden to the general public. Only those acts that are serious enough as to warrant criminal prosecution and with sufficient evidence ever reach the courts, and the sensationalism of such incidents through the media masks the deeper long-term impact of persistent lower level forms of abuse that are a continuing part of the day-to-day experience of too many. We heard of many cases where the victims of hate decided not to proceed for fear of drawing further violent attention to their circumstances and of many incidents where the absence of witnesses made prosecution difficult. Of greater concern is that we also heard of the acceptance by many people in these minority communities that a certain amount of abuse is just 'part of life'. Prejudice and hate have a huge impact on the quality of life of individuals the community to which they belong. Trust becomes more difficult, and whole families and groups withdraw into smaller circles of safety with huge consequences for the overall level of trust and social capital across the whole of society. Even worse, this degree of isolation and fear is a threat to the basic values of an open democratic society and undermines the rule of law and the principle of equality under the law. The long-term impact of social isolation is only beginning to be understood, but it is already clear that it leads to a degeneration of both the personal mental and physical health and wellbeing and this, in turn, leads to a disintegration of community cohesion. Even worse, alienation can lead directly to radicalisation and violence and contribute further to the stability of society as a whole and the quality of life of everyone. Addressing prejudice and hate crime is therefore not only an issue for minorities or those who are targeted but must be a priority concern for the whole of society. Change will require political leadership, including legal support and public policy, as well as changes in behaviour in attitudes in community and society. Our concern in this report is not to pretend to resolve these issues, but to reflect on the learning from our listening process, to analyse the research evidence and to suggest practical pathways to reduce hate, prejudice, violence, isolation and mistrust. Details: Edinburgh:The Advisory Group, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2016 at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00506074.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00506074.pdf Shelf Number: 147847 Keywords: Bias CrimesHate CrimesPrejudice |
Author: Dencik, Lars Title: Different Antisemitisms: Perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among Jews in Sweden and across Europe Summary: In this paper we combine and compare the results of two major but differently focused cross-national surveys on antisemitism. On the one hand, we have data from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey of Jewish people’s perceptions and experiences of antisemitism in eight EU member states – Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom (FRA, 2013). This survey was carried out in the second half of 2012. On the other hand, we use the results from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey of attitudes towards Jews, with representative samples of each countries’ population, carried out at the end of 2013. This study covers 102 countries all over the world.1 In this article we will focus only on the same eight EU countries that were included in the FRA study. By way of conclusion, we will elaborate on some more general implications for the understanding of the character of antisemitism in contemporary Europe and on the basis of that, present some perspectives on the development of three distinct antisemitisms in contemporary Europe. In this presentation a special focus will be on Sweden. This is partly because it is in Sweden that we have carried out most of our own empirical studies, but also because the situation in Sweden concerning antisemitism and the reaction of the Jewish population to perceived antisemitism are particularly illustrative of some of the main points we can make based on our investigations Details: London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 2017. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=3149 Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=3149 Shelf Number: 144693 Keywords: Antisemitism Bias Crimes Hate Crimes Prejudice |
Author: Scotland. Parliament. Equalities and Human Rights Committee Title: It is not Cool to be Cruel: Prejudice-based bullying and harassment of children and young people in schools Summary: Scotland is on an ambitious journey to build a more equal, fair and accepting society for all of its people. The cornerstone of this ambition must be to ensure equality for the children and young people of Scotland. How we help to shape their experience of Scotland today, will dictate how fair and equal the Scotland of tomorrow is. To do this, we must place the voices of our children and young people at the centre of our efforts to deliver their human rights. Over the last eight months the Equalities and Human Rights Committee of the Scottish Parliament has been listening to the voices of our children and young people, and their advocates, as part of our inquiry into prejudice-based bullying and harassment in schools. The story they have told us is a troubling one. In this report we have sought to shine a light on the reality of children's experiences of prejudice-based bullying and harassment and the enormous risks posed to their health and wellbeing. We have listened to their ambitions for a school life that helps them learn and grow, supports them to find out who they are, and sets them on the path to achieve their full potential. But for too many children and young people this is not the reality of their education. For them school is becoming a battle against prejudice, bullying and sexual harassment, one fought daily in classrooms, corridors, playing fields and online. Their primary goal is simply to survive their education, emotionally, psychologically, and now more than ever, literally, with 27% of LGBTI children attempting suicide. Our education system plays a vital role in addressing prejudice and harassment. Protecting the human rights of children is central to their developmental experience. We welcome the refresh of Respect for All, Scotland's national approach to anti-bullying by the Scottish Government. We thank the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, John Swinney MSP, for pausing the refresh process so as to allow us to set out the actions we believe are necessary to properly address prejudice-based bullying and harassment in schools. We believe Respect for All has a vital role to play in proactively placing a human rights-based ethos at the centre of our education system. However, it is only part of a wider approach which must be adopted to ensure key strategies and tools work effectively together to achieve the success we all want to see. This includes - recognising the prevalence of prejudice-based bullying and sexual harassment in schools, and the need for urgent action; moving away from a reactionary approach which deals with the consequences of bullying and harassment, to a proactive education system which seeks to prevent them; ensuring national policies in areas such as mental health, hate crimes, school leadership, and the curriculum, properly promote children's rights, early intervention and a whole school approach to inclusive environments; ensuring we educate children on issues such as consent and healthy relationships from the earliest age; delivering mandatory teacher training and CPD on equalities, children's rights and the impacts of prejudice-based bullying, and establishing a duty to report all prejudice-based bullying and sexual harassment in schools. Our report elaborates on these, and other key issues relating to prejudice-based bullying and harassment. The time is now for all those who help to shape, deliver and support education in Scotland to act effectively together to ensure children and young people can develop and learn in a school environment free from the fear and cruelty of prejudice. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: https://sp-bpr-en-prod-cdnep.azureedge.net/published/EHRiC/2017/7/6/It-is-not-Cool-to-be-Cruel--Prejudice-based-bullying-and-harassment-of-children-and-young-people-in-schools/5th%20Report%202017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://sp-bpr-en-prod-cdnep.azureedge.net/published/EHRiC/2017/7/6/It-is-not-Cool-to-be-Cruel--Prejudice-based-bullying-and-harassment-of-children-and-young-people-in-schools/5th%20Report%202017.pdf Shelf Number: 146713 Keywords: BullyingPrejudiceSchool BullyingSchool CrimesSexual Harassment |
Author: Chalmers, James Title: A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review Summary: In January 2017, the Scottish Government announced a review of hate crime legislation, chaired by Lord Bracadale. Lord Bracadale requested that, to assist the Review it its task, we produce a comparative report detailing principles underpinning hate crime legislation and approaches taken to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. Work on this report commenced in late March 2017 and the final report was submitted to the Review in July 2017. Chapter 1 (What is Hate Crime?) explores what is meant by the term "hate crime", noting that different definitions may properly be used for different purposes. It notes that the legislative response to hate crime can be characterised by the definition offered by Chakraborti and Garland: the creation of offences, or sentencing provisions, "which adhere to the principle that crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice towards particular features of the victim's identity should be treated differently from 'ordinary' crimes". Chapter 2 (Hate Crime Legislation in Scotland) outlines the principal provisions of hate crime legislation, as identified in the Review's remit. These can be divided into two categories. First, sentence aggravation provisions, which do not create distinct criminal offences, but allow for offences aggravated by prejudice to be recorded as such and require the aggravation to be taken into account in sentencing. Secondly, substantive offences, which primarily consist of offences relating to the stirring up of racial hatred but also include offences of racially aggravated harassment and threatening communications intended to stir up hatred on religious grounds. Chapter 3 (Justifications for Punishing Hate Crime More Severely) considers the various possible justifications for treating hate crimes as more serious than parallel non-hate crimes. The possible justifications can be divided into three broad categories: harm-based justifications; culpability-based justifications; and denunciation-based justifications. Assessing the available evidence, it concludes that the argument that hate crimes are - compared to parallel non-hate crimes - more likely to cause harm both to the direct victim and to members of the group to which the victim belonged or was perceived to belong is particularly compelling. The argument that it is important to send a message to victims of hate crime that bias and inequality of treatment is roundly condemned by the State is also persuasive. Collectively, the harm argument and the denunciatory argument (and perhaps to a lesser extent the culpability argument) provide a compelling justification for punishing hate crime more severely Chapter 4 (Models of Hate Crime Legislation) considers two questions: first, how should hate crime be identified; and secondly, how should it be addressed - through substantive and distinct offences or the penalty attaching to general offences? In relation to the first question, it outlines two specific legislative models. The first is the discriminatory selection model (where a hate crime is committed where the victim has been selected because of their membership of a protected group). The second is the animus model (where the offender is motivated by, or demonstrates, prejudice against a protected group). It notes a clear preference for the animus model in legislative practice and strong arguments of principle in support. In relation to the second question, the chapter outlines three broad models: (i) the penalty enhancement model, (ii) the sentence aggravation model, and (iii) the substantive offence model, noting that jurisdictions may choose to combine these models rather than choosing one alone. It concludes by outlining the thresholds specified for a crime to count as a hate crime in a range of jurisdictions, and examines various questions about the precise formulation of these thresholds. Chapter 5 (Choice of Protected Characteristics) notes that the characteristics presently protected (in one form or another) under hate crime law in Scotland are race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. The chapter considers the range of characteristics protected in a range of other jurisdictions, noting that the characteristics protected in Scots law are the characteristics that are most commonly protected in the other jurisdictions analysed and that the two characteristics that are not presently protected in Scots law, but are most commonly protected in other jurisdictions, are age and sex . The chapter goes on to examine the principles which should guide a decision as to which characteristics should be protected. It notes a range of possibilities which have been identified in this respect, concluding that the most persuasive accounts are those that focus on identify groups that experience unjustified marginalisation or possess forms of difference that have a justifiable claim to respect. Chapter 6 (Hate Speech and Online Hate Crime) acknowledges that significant recent work has been carried out in relation to hate speech by the Law Commission and provides a high-level overview of the legal issues related to hate speech in a comparative perspective, including the applicability of legislation to online hate speech. It considers two questions of principle - what is hate speech, and what is the harm of hate speech? - before detailing offences relating to hate speech in a range of jurisdictions, considering both the legislative models adopted and the range of groups protected. It then outlines certain issues which arise in relation to hate speech online. Chapter 7 (Hate Crime Legislation in Selected Jurisdictions) details the legislative provisions relating to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. The jurisdictions assessed are as follows: Australia (the six states and two territories are examined separately); Canada; England and Wales; New Zealand; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland; South Africa and ten jurisdictions in the United States of America (the jurisdictions selected for analysis being those which expressly protect characteristics which are not explicitly protected in any of the hate crime legislative provisions discussed elsewhere in the chapter). Chapter 8 (Approaches Taken in Other Jurisdictions Relevant to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012) examines section 1 of the 2012 Act, which is distinct because it applies only to behaviour that takes place in relation to a regulated football match. The chapter outlines the background to the Act, sets out the offences contained in section 1 and details analogous legislation in other jurisdictions including England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2017. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2017 at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 147537 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeHate CrimeHate Crime LegislationHate SpeechOnline VictimizationPrejudice |
Author: Fox, Emma Title: Profiting from Prejudice: How Mend's 'IAM' Campaign Legitimised Extremism Summary: An initiative branded as a campaign to fight Islamophobia in fact provided a platform for extremism across the public and charity sectors, according to a new report from the Henry Jackson Society. The report says that Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) exploited the legitimate concerns of people who want to fight hatred and discrimination against Muslims to push an alarmist and divisive 'us vs. them' narrative - including literature which warned that the UK was heading towards the ethnic genocide of Muslims. MEND also offered 'training' for students and encouraged them to raise money for the organisation. Profiting from Prejudice: How MEND's 'IAM' Campaign Legitimised Extremism catalogues the events which took place in November 2017 under the banner of Islamophobia Awareness Month (IAM), run by MEND. It finds that the campaign gave a platform to extremism-linked individuals, with some events hosting people with a high-profile extremist history - including incitement to violence, sympathy with convicted terrorists and support for corporal punishment against Jews, homosexuals, minority Muslim sects and 'disbelievers'. Despite the fact that the UK's national Counter-Extremism Strategy requires local authorities to ensure that "publicly-owned venues and resources do not provide a platform for extremists and are not used to disseminate extremist views", the report finds that the majority of IAM events took place on public property - from schools to university campuses - without challenge. Some of the schools involved, including two in Waltham Forest, have a history of hosting high-profile extremist speakers. IAM events also played host to various parliamentarians, academics and activists, lending the initiative - and MEND - added legitimacy. A report from the Henry Jackson Society published in 2017 found that MEND were "Islamists masquerading as civil libertarians" - but engagement with the organisation by figures such as Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn continues to enable MEND's prominence on mainstream platforms. The report contains several recommendations to reduce the impact of non-violent extremist groups in the public and civil society sectors, including: Events hosted at public institutions featuring a speaker linked to extremism should be recorded - and panels should always be balanced, with extremist-linked views challenged by other speakers. Universities' risk mitigation procedures, required under Prevent, should be more transparent in order to highlight why extremist groups continue to appear unchallenged on campus. A guidance framework should be drawn up for politicians, the police and civil society to raise awareness of how extremist groups operate - and ensure a unified stance against those who threaten social cohesion. Details: London: Henry Jackson Society, 2018. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 27, 2017 at: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HJS-Profiting-from-Prejudice-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HJS-Profiting-from-Prejudice-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149592 Keywords: ExtremismExtremists GroupsHate CrimesIslamophobiaMuslimsPrejudice |
Author: Walters, Mark A. Title: Hate Crime and the Legal Process: Options for Law Reform Summary: BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess the application of criminal laws and sentencing provisions for hate crime in England and Wales (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA), ss. 28- 32, and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA), ss. 145 and 146) in order to capture best practices and identify barriers to the implementation of these rules. The study was carried out over a 24-month period and used a multitude of sources, both secondary and primary, to answer a number of key questions that were first set out by the Law Commission's 2014 report on hate crime law reform, as well as other questions set out as part of an EU crossjurisdictional project. The report is funded by the EU Directorate-General Justice and Consumers department and forms part of a wider European study into the use of hate crime laws across five EU member states (England and Wales; Ireland; Sweden; Latvia; and the Czech Republic). METHODOLOGY A mixed-methods approach was employed for the project which enabled us to compare and contrast the stated aims and purposes of policies and legislation with the experiences of those tasked with enforcing and applying the law. This approach included: (a) an assessment of existing policies and publically available statistics; (b) a review of over 100 reported cases; and (c) 71 in-depth, qualitative semi-structured interviews with "hate crime coordinators" and "hate crime leads" at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), District (Magistrates' Court) and Circuit (Crown Court) Judges, independent barristers, victims and staff at charitable organisations that support victims of hate crime, police officers, and local authority minority group liaison staff. Part A: Law, policy and statistics: Understanding the "life cycle" of a hate crime HATE CRIME STATISTICS Using publically available statistics on hate crime, we calculate an approximate number of offences that are likely to "drop out" of the criminal justice system. The total number of cases that drop out of the system represent what is known as the "justice gap" for hate crime. Analysis of the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) suggests that approximately 110,160 hate crimes are reported to police each year. The most recent police statistics recorded 62,518 hate crimes between 2015/16. This suggests that only 57% of those incidents reported to the police are recorded as hate crimes. During the same year, the CPS prosecuted 15,442 hate-based offences, of which 12,846 resulted in a conviction. The CPS recorded the announcement of sentencing uplifts in court as 33.8% of total hate crime convictions, which equates to 4,342 cases. If these data are accurate, it means that out of an approximate 110,160 reported hate crimes, only 4,342 offences (4%) resulted in a sentence uplift based on identity-based hostility. In other words, approximately 96% of reported hate Part B: Analysis and research findings PREPARING CASES FOR PROSECUTION: COLLATING EVIDENCE TO PROVE HOSTILITY - The most cogent form of evidence to prove the hostility element of a hate crime is witness testimony of verbalised prejudice, expressed during the commission of an offence. - Additional ways in which hate crimes can be proved in court include the use of audio and video recording of the incident. However, interviewees emphasised that, without a sound recording of verbal slurs, proving a demonstration of hostility beyond reasonable doubt via video footage is extraordinarily difficult. This was most apparent in relation to disability hate crime cases. - The defendant's prior record and bad character can be important factors in proving that a defendant was motivated by hostility. However, accessing this information is problematic, as the hostility element will not be noted on a perpetrator's record where a prior offence was aggravated by sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity hostility (under CJA provisions). - Other forms of evidence that can be sufficient to prove the hostility element of a hate crime include leaflets, letters and other written documentation which indicate an affiliation with right-wing hate groups. Social media comments, subscription to websites with links to racist organisations, and text messages displaying hate-based content are also useful forms of evidence in hate crime cases. GATHERING EVIDENCE: FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AND INVESTIGATE HOSTILITY EARLY ENOUGH - There was evidence to suggest that the CPS has made recent improvements to the identification of disability hate crimes. However, there remains a significant proportion of incidents that are not flagged correctly by the police. Interviewees noted that even where there is evidence of a disablist slur having been expressed during the commission of an offence (the most common type of evidence for all types of hate crime), the disability hate crime flag is still frequently not applied. - Conversely, in some cases, the "flags" that are added to case files can become a barrier to looking beyond the wider facts of the case. This may mean that other facts or types of prejudice are lost during the investigation. - There was a perception amongst some CPS interviewees that the police need to be more "proactive" in identifying the relevant pieces of evidence that will make for a compelling case, especially in complex cases that do not involve verbalised prejudice. However, even with more carefully crafted evidence files, prosecutors frequently fail to secure uplifts at sentence for disability hate crime, meaning that the effective enforcement of hate crime legislation for victims of disability hate crime remains in doubt. - CPS prosecutors pointed to issues with some police officers not being aware of hate crime sentencing provisions, which led to investigators not collating the necessary evidence of hostility towards the complainant's sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability. GATHERING EVIDENCE: THE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POLICE AND THE CPS - Gathering evidence and presenting it successfully in court depends on a good relationship between the police and the CPS. Breakdowns in this relationship can result in cases "dropping out" of the system. - Communication problems can occur if charging advice is not sought by the police early on. In some cases, this makes it difficult to gather the necessary evidence for the hostility element later in the process. Although all interviewees were aware that the CPS needed to be contacted for charging advice, CPS prosecutors noted that this did not always happen. - Open lines of communication are key to ensuring that charging advice is sought and that discussions regarding the quality of evidence are had early on in a case's "life cycle". Police officers indicated that more immediate contact with the CPS is necessary, especially because hate crime legislation can be confusing and the police may need advice before interviewing suspects. - Communication between the CPS and the police is sometimes strained due to difference in preferred styles of communication - with the CPS frequently preferring e-communication (and reviewing of files), whereas police officers often preferred interpersonal discussions about a case. - Independent barristers for the prosecution noted that advice is often not sought from them early in the process, and a breakdown of communication between barristers and police via the CPS can lead to evidence not being collated or presented in court. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that investigators use (a non-exhaustive) checklist during the investigation and charging stages of the criminal process (the items on the checklist can be found at 6.1 in the main report). We recommend that the CPS provide police (and independent barristers employed for the prosecution) with a direct and open line to CPS area hate crime leads. Independent barristers for the prosecution should also be included in the case review process where possible. Details: Brighton, UK: University of Sussex, Crime Research Centre, 2017. 214p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2018 at: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=final-report---hate-crime-and-the-legal-process.pdf&site=539 Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=final-report---hate-crime-and-the-legal-process.pdf&site=539 Shelf Number: 149973 Keywords: Bias-Motivated Crime Crime Statistics Criminal Law ReformDiscrimination Hate Crimes Prejudice |
Author: Walach, Vaclav Title: Lifecycle of a Hate Crime. Country Report for the Czech Republic Summary: The objective of this research was to determine how hate crimes are investigated and punished in the Czech Republic (CR). This was achieved by analysing the experiences of individual actors in the criminal proceedings for this type of crime. Our corpus of data included the following categories of informants: offenders, victims, defense attorneys, public prosecutors, and judges. Additional sources of data consisted primarily of secondary literature (legislation, by-laws, concept documents, legal analyses, etc.). The project focus suggested a specific approach to the data construction. It is relatively difficult to gain access to the population for each of the categories in the hate crime research corpus. Informants within the justice system (public prosecutors and judges) are small in number and, additionally, are restricted by regulations imposed by superior bodies. In practice, this meant that potential informants could not be contacted directly, but only by submitting a formal request to individual courts and public prosecutors' offices. Access to these people was further complicated by the fact that, in the CR, hate crimes constitute a relatively narrow slice of criminal activity, and particular informants who deal with this activity are difficult to identify in advance (see below). To target these individuals, then, we relied upon help from the institutions representing individual categories of informants. Attorneys who had represented hate crime offenders or their victims in the past were also difficult to gain access to. Because no records are kept of these individuals, we were forced to identify potential informants in advance using our prior experience, or by analyzing court judgments or media content. This already reduced sample size shrank further with the frequent refusal of those contacted to take part in the research for a number of reasons. It was similarly difficult to gain access to offenders and victims of hate crime. Data protection laws, which mandate that personal data concerning offenders and victims be anonymized in judicial records provided to the public, have rendered the population in these two categories invisible. It was therefore necessary to approach these individuals via the prisons and probation institutions responsible for monitoring the offenders, along with organizations focused on helping hate crime victims. Identifying and Contacting Informants Informants were identified and contacted in two phases During the first phase, we contacted the lead organizations for the justice system, legal representation, and the prisons-the Czech Judicial Union (CJU), the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office (SPPO), the Judicial Academy (JA), the Czech Bar Association (CBA) and the General Directorate of the Prison Service (GDPS). We anticipated that they would provide access to experts in the justice system, legal profession, and to offenders. But with the exception of the GDPS, none of these institutions mediated contact with any of the informants officially. Also unsuccessful was an attempt to make mass contact with all lawyers via the CBA. There was no response to requests posted on the CBA's website or in their official magazine, Bulletin Advokacie. For this reason, we embarked upon the second phase of contact and identification, this time primarily employing personal contacts, along with an analysis of court decisions in hate crime cases and a media analysis of cases in which hate crime was mentioned. The task of identifying appropriate informants, however, clearly differed based upon the type of actor being contacted. Details: Prague: in IUSTITIA, o.p.s., 2017. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed may 2, 2018 at: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Czech-Republic-English.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Czech Republic URL: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Czech-Republic-English.pdf Shelf Number: 149974 Keywords: Bias-Motivated Crime Criminal InvestigationDiscrimination Hate Crimes Police InvestigationsPrejudice |
Author: Schweppe, Jennifer Title: Lifecycle of a Hate Crime: Comparative Report Summary: The following work presents, in detail, the final report which analyses the findings of in-depth primary and secondary research conducted over two years tracing the Lifecycle of a Hate Crime in selected EU jurisdictions. The research was undertaken in five jurisdictions within the EU - the Czech Republic, England and Wales, Ireland, Latvia, and Sweden in which contrasting approaches to addressing hate crime are evident. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the adoption by the EU Council of the Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia (2008/913/JHA). Article 4 of the Framework Decision provides that for offenses other than incitement to violence or hatred, "Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that racist and xenophobic motivation is considered an aggravating circumstance, or, alternatively that such motivation may be taken into consideration by the courts in the determination of the penalties". In some of the jurisdictions examined, the national legislative framework underpinning hate crime may be considered robust. In others, laws are more limited. Less clear is the practical application of these laws, of how and in what manner crimes with a hate or bias element come to be prosecuted, and whether and why they may be overlooked or downgraded to generic offenses. To provide greater understanding of the operational realities of the treatment of hate crime in the criminal justice process researchers gathered experiential accounts of these laws "in action" from criminal justice professionals including lawyers and judges. Research teams also sought to investigate and document both victims' and offenders' experiences of the criminal justice system in respect to hate crime. In doing so, the research aims to provide a more holistic understanding of the "lifecycle" of a hate crime, from reporting to prosecution to sentencing, in order to identify gaps and good practices in the application of laws. The findings set out here shed new light on measures to combat hate crime for a wide range of stakeholders, including police, policy makers, lawyers, judges, victim support services, and civil society organizations working with victims and offenders. This report presents a comparative analysis of the findings from the research in each of the five jurisdictions as set out in the jurisdictional reports for the Czech Republic, England and Wales, Ireland, Latvia and Sweden. In jurisdictions where this was deemed appropriate, reports were accompanied by the production of practical information for judges and prosecutors to guide and inform them on matters which should be considered in the prosecution and punishment of hate crime. Details: Dublin: ICCL, 2018. 164p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2018 at: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Comparative-Report-FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Comparative-Report-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 149976 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimesCriminal ProsecutionDiscriminationHate CrimePrejudice |
Author: Granstrom, Gorel Title: Lifecycle of a Hate Crime. Country Report for Sweden Summary: Measures against crimes motivated by bias have been defined as a priority issue in Sweden since the mid-1990s. The Swedish Government has stated that these crimes are seen as a violation of human rights and, as such, important to combat. "Effective measures against racism and hate crime contribute towards the objective of ensuring full respect for Sweden's international human rights obligations. Combating racism and similar forms of hostility prevents the risk of individual's rights being infringed." For legal actors in the Swedish judicial system, prioritising hate crime concerns increasing the number of prosecutions and convictions and also furthering measures aimed at improving the way in which victims of hate crime are treated when they come into contact with the judicial system. This has for example been discussed in the context of supervisory reports regarding both the work of the police and the work of the prosecutors. As an example, it can be mentioned that in October 2017 an annual increase of SEK 10 million (approximately 1 million EUR) was announced in the budget of the Police Authority to be directed to the special democracy and hate crimes units within the three largest cities in Sweden. This extra funding is intended to provide the means for strengthening the capacity of the units to investigate hate crimes, by providing them with more opportunity for education and training, and also for improving coordination of the work among them. The aim of this study is to investigate the application of criminal laws and sentencing provisions regarding bias-motivated crimes in Sweden. Our goal is to identify best practices with regard to the tools used to combat bias-motivated crimes by studying legal regulations and policy documents and comparing these with the experiences of the legal actors (judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers) of how this legal framework is applied in practice. This is a study that contrasts law in books with law in action, in that, by interviewing those working with hate crime legislation, we have attempted to discover what works and where there is room for improvement. In line with this, we also interviewed victims of bias-motivated crimes and offenders who have committed such crimes. The overall aim is to investigate both how these groups have been met by the judicial system and their opinions of these meetings. Details: Umea, Sweden: Umea University, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2018 at: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Sweden-English.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Sweden URL: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Life-Cycle-of-a-Hate-Crime-Country-Report-for-Sweden-English.pdf Shelf Number: 150026 Keywords: Bias-Motivated Crimes Criminal Prosecution DiscriminationHate Crime Prejudice |
Author: Haynes, Amanda Title: Lifecycle of a Hate Crime: Country Report for Ireland Summary: This research is the Irish report of a five jurisdiction study which seeks to understand the Lifecycle of a Hate Crime as it navigates through the criminal justice process. The other partners to the research are the Czech Republic, Latvia, Sweden, and England and Wales. The project adopted the definition of a hate crime as promulgated by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), that is: "... criminal acts committed with a bias motive. It is this motive that makes hate crimes different from other crimes. A hate crime is not one particular offence. It could be an act of intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder or any other criminal offence. The term "hate crime" or "bias crime", therefore, describes a type of crime, rather than a specific offence within a penal code. A person may commit a hate crime in a country where there is no specific criminal sanction on account of bias or prejudice. The term describes a concept, rather than a legal definition." The purpose of this research was to understand and explore the Lifecycle of a Hate Crime in the Irish criminal justice process. The objectives of the research across all five jurisdictions were to: - Detail the operational realities of hate crime legislation by gathering experiential accounts of the legislation 'in action' from legal professionals; - Document differences in both victims' and offenders' experiences of the criminal justice process according to the legislative and policy context; and - Identify shortfalls in the legislative responses to Article 4 of the Frame- work Decision on Racism and Xenophobia. To this end, the research partners were tasked with conducting a doctrinal analysis of hate crime legislation in each jurisdiction; exploring policies pertaining to policing and prosecutorial functions in relation to hate crime; conducting a secondary analysis of statistics on the recording, prosecution and sentencing of hate crime; and conducting interviews with victims, previous offenders, judges, prosecutors, and defense practitioners. The research sought to illuminate the period between 2011 and 2016. Details: Dublin: ICCL, 2017. 216p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hate-Crime-Report-LR-WEB.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Ireland URL: https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hate-Crime-Report-LR-WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 150086 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimesCriminal ProsecutionDiscriminationHate CrimePrejudice |
Author: Kamenska, Anhelita Title: Lifecycle of a Hate Crime. Country Report for Latvia Summary: Recent years have seen positive, but at the same time insufficient developments in combatting and preventing hate crimes in Latvia. Changes have predominantly taken place in the legislation, largely as a result of Latvia's international obligations. In Latvia, much attention is paid to the incitement of hatred issues, particularly on the Internet, which have also been impacted by different foreign and domestic political events, such as the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, migration, etc. while public information about hate crimes is rare. The 2014 Criminal Law amendments which envisage criminal liability for incitement to social hatred on grounds of gender, age, disability and other characteristics, should be generally viewed positively as they expand the protection of vulnerable groups against hate crimes and hate speech. Although the list of protected characteristics is open, nevertheless, the legislator by explicitly naming a characteristic or a specific group sends a signal that manifestations of hatred against the group are unacceptable in Latvia. Despite the surveys in Latvia and wider European Union, which indicate high levels of homophobia in Latvia, there was insufficient political commitment by the parliament to include sexual orientation among protected characteristics. While racist motive was made aggravating circumstance already in 2006, and "national, ethnic and religious motive" was added in 2014, allegedly to bring the Latvian legislation in line with Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/913/JH on combatting certain forms and expression of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, this provision has never been applied in practice. Thus, the transposition can be considered as formal as some of the leading criminal law experts have not been able to provide sufficient clarification for its application. Training of police officers to identify and investigate hate crimes has increased. The signing of an agreement between the OSCE/ODIHR and the State Police in Latvia in December 2014, trainings organized in co-operation with the State Police College and NGOs, as well as the guidelines on hate crime identification and investigation issued by the State Police in August 2018, are welcome developments. However, the training of the representatives of law enforcement bodies and judicial bodies is irregular and not systematic. Official data about hate crimes and incitement to hatred cases are limited, the number of opened criminal proceedings during the year remain small. Unofficial statistics compiled by NGOs, such as the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and the Association of LGBT and their friends "Mozaīka" indicate a higher number of crimes motivated by race, xenophobia and homophobia than those that come to the attention of national authorities. There remains very serious concern about the unwillingness of hate crime victims to report hate crimes to the law enforcement authorities. Although the legislation provides for a significant range of victims' rights which have also been expanded through the adoption of the EU's Victims' Rights, support to victims in practice remains inadequate. Latvia has no special support programmes for hate crime victims and overall, the country falls behind in general victim support structures and programmes compared with most EU Member States. For the first time, in 2015 the Latvian government granted state funding for social rehabilitation services to adult victims of all crimes. The financial support by the government and selected municipalities to different civil society projects aimed at promoting tolerance and combatting hate crimes and hate speech has increased, nevertheless it remains small. This hinders NGOs from planning long-term and sustainable projects. In recent years there have also been several research projects about different aspects of hate crimes and hate speech. Both the research conducted by the Ombudsman's Office in 2016 and the research conducted by the Latvian Centre for Human Rights in 2017 within the framework of the current project (30 police officers, prosecutors, judges and defense counsels were interviewed) address a range of topical issues related to the identification, investigation, prosecution and trial of hate crime and incitement to hatred cases. These include a need for government strategy to tackle hate crimes and hate speech, need for regular training, including multi-disciplinary training of the law enforcement and judicial sector, measures that would encourage and increase hate crime reporting by the victims. They also analyse gaps in the implementation of criminal law provisions, issues related to the selection of external experts and criteria for external expert opinions (an issue that has been unresolved for over a decade) in incitement to hatred cases and call for information campaigns to promote tolerance. Many of the issues addressed by the research are not new, however, their resolution will not be successful without the commitment of relevant national authorities, sustained government support and adequate understanding that hate speech and hate crimes can strike at the very fundamentals of the Latvian society. Details: Riga, Latvia: Latvian Centre for Human Rights, 2017. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/media/attachments/01/03/2018/ENG_brosura_internetam.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Latvia URL: http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/media/attachments/01/03/2018/ENG_brosura_internetam.pdf Shelf Number: 150087 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimesCriminal ProsecutionDiscriminationHate CrimePrejudice |
Author: Abrams, Dominic Title: Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain Summary: This is the first national survey of prejudice for over a decade. It measures prejudice and discrimination in Britain experienced by people with a wide range of protected characteristics: age, disability, race, sex, religion or belief, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment. Our report demonstrates the value of using a national survey of this type to measure prejudice and discrimination in Britain and to set out a benchmark for future surveys. The purpose of this research is to help establish a national 'barometer' for monitoring changes in the attitudes and experiences of the general population. We were commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to design and run a national survey of prejudice, using a consistent set of measures across a range of protected characteristics. We surveyed 2,853 adults in Britain using the NatCen Panel surveys and carried out an additional survey to target minority groups that may otherwise not be well represented in the survey. Our approach provides new insights into the form and prevalence of prejudice and discrimination in Britain. Measuring these issues in a consistent way across protected characteristics groups and across England, Scotland and Wales, gives us a uniquely recent and comparable overview. It enables us to look across a range of measures to paint a meaningful picture of the prejudice affecting a particular protected characteristic, rather than looking at individual measures on their own. Although it does not yet provide a picture of prejudice and discrimination for all protected characteristics - which would require a larger and further-developed survey - it sets out a workable model for a future national instrument for monitoring these issues in Britain. This report provides an overview of what we have found out about people's experiences and expressions of prejudice in Britain. Details: Manchester: The Commission, 2018. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Research report 119: Accessed October 22, 2018 at: https://equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/national-barometer-of-prejudice-and-discrimination-in-britain.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/national-barometer-of-prejudice-and-discrimination-in-britain.pdf Shelf Number: 153047 Keywords: Bias Discrimination Harassment Hate Crimes Prejudice |
Author: ACON Title: In Pursuit of Truth and Justice: Documenting gay and transgender prejudice killings in NSW in the late 20th century Summary: Australia has a long history of violence towards people from sexual and gender minorities, stretching from colonisation to the present day. This Report looks at what has been a tragic and shameful episode in Sydney’s history. “It is now known that from the 1970s through to the 1990s, hundreds of members of Sydney's LGBTI communities experienced extremely violent assaults. Some of the bashings ended in hospitalisation, and there were also disappearances and deaths for gay men or men who were perceived to be gay, and for trans women. For some, the difference between assault and murder was often slender - good or bad luck. Many of these assaults occurred in and around the 'ghetto' area of Oxford Street or in the nearby suburbs, although some even happened in the person's home. As well, many of these assaults on men were at suburban beats. "Given prevailing social attitudes to dissident sexualities at the time - and even after male homosexual acts were decriminalised in early 1984 - many of these crimes were inadequately dealt with by police, often being classified after desultory investigations as suicides, misadventure or accidents. Many remain unsolved to this day." (Wotherspoon 2017) ACON, in conjunction with key partners, has undertaken a review of the initial list of 88 homicide cases that occurred during this period. Reported and unreported case judgments, Coronial documents, journal articles, newspaper items and archives have been reviewed. ACON has also undertaken a thematic analysis of the collated case data to draw out key themes of violence surrounding deaths, and to enable broader reflection on the lessons learnt about the culture of violence against LGBTI communities. These deaths were also accompanied by violence more broadly inflicted on the community - assaults, violence, harassment and abuse. This Review has occurred in the context of previous and current responses to these crimes. These include NSW Police Operation Taradale in 2005 which exposed significant deficiencies in the investigation of a number of these murders; Operation Parrabell which is ongoing and may shed light on the degree to which these cases were motivated by "bias"; as well as several Coronial investigations such as the Scott Johnson inquest. In addition, the media has directed attention at these crimes, including the work of many journalists (notably Rick Feneley) and investigators, for example resulting in the recent high-profile documentary and SBS drama series, Deep Water. The key findings from this review include: 1. Homicides occurred in three main spaces, with majority of victims being killed in their own homes, followed by beats, and other locations which mostly include gay and other social spaces. 2. In general, there was little or no pre-existing relationship between assailants and their victims. 3. Where killings happened in the victim's house, the victim was more likely to be known to the assailant, albeit in a minor way, whereas there was generally no existing relationship between the victim and assailant where the killing occurred at the beat or gay social spaces. Details: Surrey Hill, NSW: ACON, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 8, 2019 at: https://www.acon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/In-Pursuit-of-Truth-and-Justice-Report-FINAL-220518.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.acon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/In-Pursuit-of-Truth-and-Justice-Report-FINAL-220518.pdf Shelf Number: 154849 Keywords: Bias-Motivated Crimes Hate Crimes Homicides LGBTI Persons PrejudiceViolent Crimes |