|
< Viewpoints
< 2008
“Hate crimes – the ugly face of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Gypsyism,
Islamophobia and homophobia”
[21/07/08] Hate crimes are a daily
reality all over the European continent. Credible recent reports show that
people suffer violence because they are black, Jewish, Roma or Muslim or
because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They give examples
of how individuals have been physically attacked in the street, had their
windows broken or homes put on fire. Government authorities have a responsibility
to put an end to these shameful and serious crimes.
Both the OSCE’s Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the non-governmental
Human Rights First have published
surveys on violent acts motivated by intolerance and hatred.
The European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) presents facts and analysis about
such crimes in its country reports and recommendations on how to counter
them. All these documents demonstrate the danger of allowing prejudices
against others to take root and spread. Unfortunately, the step from hate
speech to hate crime is easily made.
One country where several incidents have been reported is Ukraine. Last
year a Nigerian medical student, George Itoro Ebong, was smashed over the
head with a bottle while waiting for a bus in Kiev. To the bleeding victim
the three attackers shouted “Go back to Africa; you are a monkey!”. This
was not a unique case, there have been a number of other racist crimes in
Ukraine in recent years, some of them with fatal outcomes.
In my
assessment report on the human rights situation in Ukraine(1)
I referred to such racist attacks and also to violence against Roma people
and to a worrying trend of active anti-Semitic movements. Racist criminals
were usually arrested when found but often rapidly released by the police
who were reported to have taken bribes. In other cases, the attacks were
judged not to be xenophobic, but the criminal actions of hooligans, and
therefore given a more lenient response.
Similar violent hate crimes can be observed in a number of other countries.
In the Russian Federation, extreme right-wing groups have committed a series
of hate crimes, in some cases even murders, against members of ethnic, religious
and national minorities. In recent years, people from the Caucasus, not
least Chechens, have been targeted as well. The law is clear and sees such
racist and anti-Semitic motives as an aggravating factor but this is not
always borne out in the trials. Though the government has spoken out against
racist and anti-Semitic violence, the problem remains.
In Italy there have been serious violent actions against Roma people during
the past year, including physical attacks and arson, following prejudiced
speeches by some politicians and xenophobic reporting in some media outlets.
The whole Roma community has been made a scapegoat for crimes committed
by only a very few, and politicians have demonstrated little moral leadership
in trying to stem this wave of anti-Gypsyism.
A mixture of Islamophobia and racism is also directed against immigrant
Muslims or their children. This tendency has increased considerably after
9/11 and government responses to such terrorist crimes. Muslims have been
physically attacked and mosques vandalised or burnt in a number of countries.
In the United Kingdom no less than eleven mosques were attacked after the
London terrorist bombings on 7 July 2005 and in France five mosques were
attacked with explosives or put alight in 2006.
Gay pride events have been attacked in several European cities, including
Bucharest, Budapest and Moscow. In Riga, extremists hurled faeces and eggs
at gay activists and their supporters when they were seen were leaving a
church service. Some years ago a Swedish hockey player was stabbed to death
in Vasteras after he had made known that he was homosexual. In Oporto, Portugal,
a group of boys attacked and killed a homeless Brazilian transgender woman
and left the body in a water-filled pit. These incidents are only the tip
of the ice-berg.
Some of these assaults may have been committed by distorted individual minds
but many of them bear the imprints of neo-Nazi groups or other organised,
extremist gangs who tend to be at the same time racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Roma,
anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and homophobic. They may also target foreigners
and persons with disabilities.
The seriousness of such crimes and the duty of governments to take action
to stop them have also been underlined by the Court of Human Rights. In
one judgment it underlined the importance of effective investigation in
cases of racially motivated violence:
‘Racial violence is a particular affront to human dignity and, in view
of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance
and a vigorous reaction. It is for this reason that the authorities must
use all available means to combat racism and racist violence, thereby reinforcing
democracy’s vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a
threat but as a source of enrichment’(2).
In the same judgment the Court also stressed the duty on governments to
take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether
or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the events.
So, what ought to be done in concrete terms to prevent and react upon cases
of hate crime?
• Anti-discrimination bodies should be established with a broad mandate
and the authority to address hate violence through monitoring, reporting
and assistance to victims.
• Governments should establish co-operative relations with minority communities
themselves and invite proposals on measures to be taken to prevent and act
upon concrete hate incidents. Such measures will build confidence within
the community and reassure citizens that reports of hate crimes are taken
seriously.
• Steps should be taken to ensure that the bias-motivated crimes are
monitored and that data is collected on them and their circumstances.
Unfortunately, there is an information gap in several countries due to lack
of sufficient official determination. The European Union Monitoring Centre
on Racism and Xenophobia – the forerunner to the Fundamental Rights Agency
– reported in 2006 that among the EU countries only Finland and the United
Kingdom had data collection systems on racist crime that could be considered
‘comprehensive’. In 2007 the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance
(ECRI) issued practical guidelines to assist member States in monitoring
and effectively investigating these types of crimes(3).
• Access to complaints procedures needs to be improved for both individual
victims and defence groups. Extra efforts are needed in this area as it
is likely that quite a number of assaults will otherwise go unreported because
of fear and reluctance among the victims themselves.
• The judicial response to hate crimes must be severe. The bias motivation
is indeed seen as an aggravating factor enhancing the penalty in several
countries. In some others the legal approach is to define hate crimes as
distinct crimes requiring strict sentences. However, there are still member
states of the Council of Europe which have no provision to enhance penalties
on hate crimes. In some others the definition of the bias is limited to
only some victim groups. For example, violence against persons because of
their sexual orientation or disability is not included in the hate crime
legislation in several countries.
• Existing hate crime laws must be promptly enforced in order to
increase their deterrent effect. The procedures should be well documented
and made public.
On top of these concrete steps there is a need to invest more energy into
prevention – to inform and educate in order to address the ignorance
and fear which often is behind xenophobia and intolerance. The Strasbourg
Court has also highlighted the responsibility of teachers in the promotion
of a society of tolerance.
This is an area in which the Council of Europe has produced excellent teaching
material, for instance in its campaigns ‘All Equal – All Different’ and
‘Dosta!’ (on meeting the Roma). School curricula in member states should
nowadays also include education about other religions and cultures with
the aim of countering intolerance. The media also have a responsibility
not to become a vehicle for the dissemination of hate speech and the promotion
of violence.
However, some politicians undermine such efforts by using their platforms
to foster and exploit prejudices, rather than to stand up for human rights
and respect for those who are different. Thereby they ‘legitimise’ intolerance
which in turn may spur hate speech and hate crimes. They should be held
responsible.
Thomas Hammarberg
Notes
1.Report
by the Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit
to Ukraine, 10 – 17 December 2006.
2. The European Court of Human Rights, in its Grand Chamber
judgment in the case of Nachova and others v Bulgaria (6 July 2005)
3. ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 11 on combating
racism and racial discrimination in policing, 29 June 2007, Section III.
Links
 The
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
Human Rights First
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (ODIHR)
This Viewpoint can be re-published in newspapers or on the internet without
our prior consent, provided that the text is not modified and the original
source is indicated in the following way: "Also available at the Commissioner's
website at www.commissioner.coe.int"
|
Print 
Send 
Version française