The world stage has unfortunately, become more and more unstable, volatile and violent as time has passed. The brutal October 7th attacks shocked the world and brought more attention to the dynamics of the middle east, and following this date, escalations have continued to rise with Israel, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. The violence and crisis in Gaza in particular, has drawn sympathy and attention from the rest of the world, and many in the west, including the UK, have become embroiled in conflicts that separate often, across ethnic and religious divides. This is not just an international affair, domestically, these issues are affecting communities up and down the UK. The recent Southport riots were driven by fears and hatred of immigrants, often times who are Muslim, most notably, the attacker at Southport was misidentified as a Muslim.
Home Office figures show that this affects the UK domestically in the data, religious hate crime recorded by police in England and Wales has risen by 25% over the past year, driven mainly by a rise in offences against Jews and Muslims since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Shockingly, of the 140,561 hate crime offences recorded, 7 in 10 are shown to have been motivated by race. This is alarming, not only as this shows a clear absence of community cohesion, but also as, as research from Sussex University has shown, that knowing other people who have been a hate crime victim increased individuals’ perceptions of threat, which in turn was linked to them experiencing increased feelings of vulnerability, anxiety and anger.[1]
Despite this however, unfortunately, hate crime is under-reported, there are various reasons for this, however some common reasons are that there was a lack of confidence in authorities, a lack of knowledge on who to go to or speak to, waiting times, and a fear of retaliation and a lack of insight into what constitutes a criminal offence.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper stated, "The appalling levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic hate crimes outlined in today’s figures are a stain on our society, and this government will work tirelessly to tackle this toxic hatred wherever it is found,"
"We must not allow events unfolding in the Middle East to play out in increased hatred and tension here on our streets and those who push this poison - offline or online - must face the full force of the law,"
Too often, however, these events do unfold on our streets. With changing demographics, often with our communities being increasingly diverse through both religion and race; attention needs to be focused on keeping our communities safe, and developing interactions that are meaningful, a better understanding of difference and improved strategies that effectively address polarisation and marginalisation no matter the international stage.
Hate Crime Policy: Limitations and Background
Hate crime has a longstanding definition problem. One writer on hate crime recounted a conversation with a British government policy maker? ‘Who lamented that even if you could lock academics in a room for six months with the task of producing a definition of hate crime, that would most likely emerge with more definitions than they had when they went in’.[2] It is important however, to recognise that despite the term of ‘hate crime’ most credible definitions, are consistent in referring to broader notion such as prejudice, hostility or bias as key factors’.[3] It is therefore important to recognise the breadth of the concept, it is rare for hate crimes to be committed by organised hate groups or extremists, as ‘most hate crimes tend to be committed by relatively ordinary people in the context of their everyday lives’.[4]
There are, ‘protected characteristics’ and they are often considered what is ‘attacked’ or under threat under a hate crime offence. This includes disability, race or ethnicity, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation or transgender identity. There are also, disparate and different pieces of relevant legislation, first, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which created a series of offences which could be racially ‘aggravated’, meaning they could attract a higher sentence. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 incorporated religiously aggravated offences. In 2003, the Labour government passed the Criminal Justice Act, which made hostility based on a victim’s sexual orientation, or disability, an aggravating actor. This was amended in 2012 to include transgender hostility.
Often, the policy agenda and consequently, the formulation, has focused on the desire to protect vulnerable groups. The 1998 law, for example, was passed in a response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, in 2001 this was to protect Muslims after 9/11.[5] This has led some to remark that this has led to a ‘hierarchy of hate’ where some vulnerabilities, are protected more than others.
Government policy regarding hate crime has changed throughout the years, as the policy process and agenda has shifted. Published in 2012, the Government’s plan to tackle hate crime helped improve understanding with the police and wider criminal justice system, this helped improve police recording of hate crime, amended legislation to provide for enhanced sentencing in a wider range of crimes, publishing findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) on the extent of hate crime victimisation.[6] On the 26th of July 2016, there was a Hate Crime Action Plan published, which led with a ‘victim-focused approach’ and was reviewed in 2018. As a summary, its main aims were to challenge underlying beliefs and attitudes, respond by funding schemes, increase reporting, improving victim support, and build understanding through data.[7]
There were further recommendations and reviews of the hate crime legislation framework, done by the Law Commission which is available here:
Further worthwhile viewing is the Victim’s Code/Charter: https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/help-and-support/your-rights/victims-code/
Hate crime and ASB
Hate crime is an issue for many, but however, it remains a pertinent issue for social housing providers, research from the Chartered Institute of Housing highlights why this is, including the fact that social housing households are four times more likely than owner-occupiers to be victims of hate crime, are often considered to be ‘community anchors’ in that they have significant local influence, and are required to comply with their equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Anti-social behaviour is also often entangled with hate crimes, and many social housing providers locate hate crime in their ASB policy responses. It seems clear that to best tackle hate crime, it is important to distinguish between acts of hate crime, and anti-social behaviour as they can often overlap. This is found even more difficulty when often ASB instances can devolve into hate crime, for example ‘an incident may start as noise nuisance but at some point racist or disability language may be used’, many more serious hate crime incidents therefore seem to be driven my repeated lower-level unrelated instances. It is therefore suggested that it is important to recognise how hate crime can evolve, and how perception can also exacerbate hate crime and it’s effects.
There is also evidence that most hate crime is verbal abuse, threats and intimidation and that victims are likely to suffer repeat victimisation. Restorative justice (RJ) could therefore be a solution, RJ empowers victims of crime to communicate with the offender, using a face-to-face meeting. This could help them to regain a sense of power, lower their sense of feelings of self-blame, and encourage empathy and understanding.
Case Studies
There are some case studies that show how best to tackle hate crime, and to tackle a breakdown in community cohesion. One example was highlighted by the LGA (Local Government Association), the Future Leaders Programme. It was stated that ‘East London has a history of extremist groups operation in the area’ and therefore, ‘Local Authorities in the region have been particularly concerned that young people may be vulnerable to extremist ideologies’. As a result, the London Boroughs of Redbridge, Newham and Waltham forest, has sought to expand upon a project established with four key objectives:
- develop young people as leaders so they can identify and help tackle the risks/causes of radicalisation
- inform young people so they may help respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism
- empower young people to become ‘community stabilisers’ and Prevent ambassadors so they may help stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism
- safeguard and support those possibly at risk of radicalisation through early intervention and appropriate support.
The programme sought applications from 50 young people per borough, and over time, it has grown in popularity; in 2021, 468 young people applied for just 50 places in Redbridge. Workshops included session on British values, hate speech, extremism, radicalisation, democracy, violence against women and girls, mental health and more. This also included a variety of high-profile guest speakers. It was reported that the impact of the programme, led to a closer relationship between the local authorities and local secondary schools. Leading to improved levels of trust, and as a result, an increase in Prevent referrals.
Another relevant case study is that which is highlighted by the Chartered Institute for Housing (CIH), of Arawak Walton Housing Association. As a Black and minority ethnic housing association (BME) the focus is on race hate crime. The association has therefore undertaken door knocking in local BME communities, including mosques, the association reaches out to communities and makes telephone contact with organisations to identify the impact that events such as the Manchester terror attack and the EU referendum, are having on them. Arawak Walton also organises events that bring different people together, focusing on being proactive in reaching out to young people, and make sure to celebrate similarities and differences, raising awareness of what hate crime is.
Concluding thoughts
Hate crime is pernicious and insidious issue, that can often choose to show its effects a times of growing worldwide tensions. It is suggested because of the case studies, that a multi-agency approach, focused on proactive and empathetic practice, can best combat the effects of hate crime, including improving reporting to agencies, therefore leading to better data, which informs better practice. There is little we can do to combat growing international tension, what we can do however, is help shape practice and policy to safeguard our communities at home.
[1] https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/report/The_Sussex_Hate_Crime_Project_final_report/23454263?file=41163248
[2] N Hall, Hate Crime, 2nd edn (2013) 4
[3] 13 N Chakraborti and J Garland, Hate Crime: Impact, Causes and Responses, 2nd edn (2015) 13.
[4] 4 N Chakraborti and J Garland, “Reconceptualizing hate crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and ‘difference’” (2012) 16 Theoretical Criminology 499 at 505.
[5] https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/22/hate-crime
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hate-crime-action-plan-challenge-it-report-it-stop-it
[7] https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/70194/pdf/
