A Conceptual Framework to Map Responses to Hate Crime, Hate Incidents and Hate Speech: The Case of Australia

Mapping the scientific knowledge and approaches to defining and measuring hate crime, hate speech, and hate incidents: A systematic review.

The overallaim of the review is to map the definitions and measurement tools used to capture the whole spectrum of hate motivated behaviors, including hate crime, hate speech and hate incidents. This will benefit the field of hate studies by providing a baseline that can inform the building of cumulative knowledge and comparative research. The first review objective is to map definitions of hate crime, hate incidents, hate speech, and surrogate terms. Specific research questions underpinning this objective are: (a) How are hate crimes, hate speech and hate incidents defined in the academic, legal, policy, and programming literature?; (b) What are the concepts, parameters and criteria that qualify a behavior as being hate crime, hate incident or hate speech?; and (c) What are the most common concepts, parameters and criteria found across definitions? What are the differences between definitions and the elements they contain? The second review objective is to map the tools used to measure the prevalence of hate crime, hate incidents, hate speech, and surrogate terms. Specific research questions underpinning this objective are: (a) How are definitions operationalised to measure hate crimes, hate speech, and hate incidents?; and (b) How valid and reliable are these measures?

Hate crime and hate speech are extreme examples of negative intergroup relations. It is thought that it would be very useful to analyze the variables that lead up to for dealing with hate speech and crimes that have many physical and psychological destructive consequences for the exposed group members. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to address some of the social psychological variables associated with hate speech and hate crimes and to suggest solutions to reduce hate speech and hate crimes in this context. For this purpose, first of all, hate speech and hate crimes were defined and various examples were presented in this direction. Later, hate crimes and hate speech were examined in terms of social identity identification, social dominance orientation, system justification, realistic and symbolic threat perception, frustration and scapegoat concepts. The relationship between hate speech and crimes of this concept has been embodied with research findings and examples from various regions in Turkey and the world. Finally, some solution suggestions have been presented by making use of this theoretical knowledge in terms of combating hate crimes and hate speeches. Keywords: Hate crime, hate speech, intergroup relations, social psychology

Hate crimes both impact on the individual targeted as well as wider community life, as they indicate intolerance and a lack of safety for disabled people, further spreading fear and othering. Disablism can be said to refer to discriminatory, oppressive and abusive behaviour targeted at disabled people. Hate speech and hate crimes can thus be seen as forms of disablism regularly encountered. The wider social victimisation of autistic people and those with learning disabilities is well documented in research. L. Richardson, through using a survey method as well as focus groups and interviews, looked into hate incidents toward autistic people and those with learning disabilities, including wider forms of victimisation. 46% of their sample had been victimised and many also talked of historical abuse and bullying. National surveys such as by E. Emerson and C. Hatton found a figure of 32%. In both these samples, those deemed more “able” participants experienced more serious incidents of victimisation.

The consequences of hate incidents are far greater than transgressions without an underlying bias motive. The powerful emotional and psychological effect observed in victims of hate rests in the perpetrator attacking the identity or an unchangeable characteristic of a victim. Within South Africa, these effects are compounded by the country’s legacy of discrimination and oppression; thus, the potential consequences of hate victimisation within this context extend beyond the emotional. This justifies differential retributive and restorative measures following such incidents; however, legislative and policy frameworks to respond to hate victimisation are only in the beginning stages. The scarcity of empirical research on hate incidents and their consequences in South Africa renders this investigation the first of its kind. The researchers aimed to determine the demographic and situational variables that put individuals at a higher risk for experiencing emotional consequences as a result of hate victimisation. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression modelling were used to analyse data ( n = 409, Mean Age = 31.5). Results indicate a higher vulnerability of emotional consequences if a victim is exposed to economic consequences, if the offender is known to the victim, and if the victim identifies as Black African. Sex and type of incident (hate crimes, hate speech, and intentional unfair discrimination) showed no significant relationship with emotional consequences. The results enable greater insight into victim experiences of emotional consequences and motivate prioritising psychosocial health care, targeted interventions, and relevant legislative and policy frameworks for victims and communities affected by hate incidents.

<p>The regress of liberal democracy in the world has been progressing for years and the number of countries with the full democracy index is decreasing [Economist Intelligence Unit 2018, 2019; Freedom House 2018]. One of the serious threats to the rule of law and the human rights in modern democracy has become discriminatory legalism which is both strategy and weapon [Weyland 2013]. In order to weaken or marginalize the opposition and “rebellious” citizens, public authorities apply discriminatory legal instruments and democratic rules depending on who they are concerned with. Public authorities do this because of political views and use exclusion rhetoric, a language of hatred, stigmatizing all “strangers”, at last use hate speech on the Internet and beyond. The weaponization of hate speech is a convenient instrument for political struggle and the fight against inconvenient opponents. Hate speech is also used by far-right and nationalist organizations in the public sphere, which operate in an atmosphere of consent to their radical behaviour. Political hate speech plays an important role in the discriminatory legal strategy. Poland is included in the group of countries with flawed democracy (Article 7(1) TEU since 2017). The authorities introduced changes in law (which were defied as the “Frankensteinisation of legislation” by the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe [PACE] in 2019), democratic institutions and the prosecution applies a discriminatory legalism strategy. This problem is highlighted by the current Commissioner for Human Rights which is an independent institution in the field of fighting hate speech (except a few independent media and NGOs informing about the hate speech phenomenon). Many of hate speech cases are discontinued or not taken up by the prosecution. The numbers of cases of hate speech and hate incidents are increasing but the Polish authorities use the underreporting mechanism. The Ombudsman warns that only 5% of cases are reported to the police. The language of hatred and contempt used by the authorities in Poland has become the weaponization in the fight against citizens as political opponents: LGBT+ community, refugees, political opponents, independent judges and others.</p>

According to the universal declaration of human rights, freedom of speech is fundamental rights. It is needed by human to express their feeling to each other especially towards stakeholders. The article 19 of the declaration also stated it clearly that it has guarantee for human to receive information. However, it has to be admitted that several speeches are leading human into calamity. There are cases of human violence based on national, racial, or religious hatred. It has been known there are cases in south East Asia such as the attack of Ahmadiyah and Shia community, the sealing of several religious houses, and the stateless Rohingya ethnic. Those cases are usually started by the practice of hate speech. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) divines hate speech as any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Hate speech is one form of restricting freedom of speech in order to maintain social order. In Islamic literature, some scholars has categorized several kinds of speech that are prohibited according to Islamic tradition. Hujjatul Islam Al-ghazali categorized twenty kinds of speech which are prohibited by Islamic tradition. However, hate speech is not specifically included within. This research found that hate speech is consisted by several kinds of those prohibited speech. It contains the act of ridicule, insult, and curse. Moreover, it calls for the audience to hate and violence the target group. To enrich the understanding of the issue, this research use the maqasid sharia as fundamental value in Islamic law that offered by Jasser Auda. Through the method of multi-dimensions and blocking the mean which are combined by maqasid, this research emphasizes that hate speech is repugnant and it is better to be prohibited. However, the prohibition of the act should be followed by good evaluation system. Therefore, it is not abused by several groups for their private gain.

Hate speech includes all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred towards a person or group. The expansion of the Internet has marked an important change in the phenomenon, insofar as content is no longer mediated by editors. Hate speech based on ethnic, racial and religious hatred is recognized as a violation of the human rights set out by the European and international standards. This is not the case for sexist hate speech, although this difference is not justified by the data. The lack of a shared regulatory definition leads to shortcomings in, or even the complete absence of victim protection. Gender equality and freedom of expression are interconnected: enabling hate speech against women and girls to go unpunished limits women’s freedom of information and deprives society of their voices. The balance must be struck by finding the tools for free speech. An overview of such tools is the goal of this contribution.

Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Against Online Hate Speech.

The recent enactment of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 makes it (for the first time) unlawful to incite hatred on religious grounds in England and Wales. This legislation has however been attacked by a number of Muslims on the basis that it is too rigidly drawn, and that the scope of the offence of incitement to religious hatred is narrower than comparable legislation governing incitement to racial hatred. In critically analysing the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, this article makes particular reference to the recent Islamic Council of Victoria case in Australia on religious vili cation and hate speech which, it is suggested, provides a salutary lesson to those who would seek to expand the remit of the Act. It is argued that the Racial and Religious Hatred Act is not merely a symbolically important measure, but is also a fair and workable compromise which protects faith groups from incitement to religious hatred without placing excessive curbs on free speech.

Notwithstanding over two decades of 'hate speech' legislation, hate crime regulation in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is in its infancy, with limited criminal sanctions intro­duced in the last ten years. Across the ten jurisdictions, there are a variety of legislative, policy and practice responses to 'hate speech' (vilification) and prejudice-related violence (hate crime). This chapter will outline the institutional and cultural contexts in which these responses emerge as a criminal justice issue before proceeding to a critical discussion of antipodean hate crime governance. In Australia and New Zealand, as occurs elsewhere, 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. These civil remedies have also been extended in some cases to criminal codes and sentencing legislation, and the enshrinement of individual rights to freedom from violence in human rights charters. A complete survey of all these strategies is not possible within the limits of this chapter. Instead, case studies from throughout the region are presented here as exemplars of the strategies employed, and issues and critical barriers faced, in reducing prejudice-related violence.

우리는 요즘 인터넷에서 ‘○○녀’, ‘△△남’ 더 나아가, ‘□□충’이라는 표현을 어렵지 않게 접할 수 있다. 이러한 표현들은 한 개인의 사상이나 개인적인 감정의 표출이 아니라, 표적집단(target group)이 특정 속성을 가지고 있다는 것 자체가 곧 그러한 표현의 원인이 된다. 또한 한 개인에 대해 위해가 가해지는 것이 아니라 표적집단 전체에 대한 집단적 차별성을 전제로 이루어지는 것이라는 점에 그 해악이 크다. 이에, 최근 한국사회에서는 ‘표현의 자유’와 더불어 ‘혐오표현(hate speech)’을 어떻게 이해할 것인가에 대해서 본격적으로 논의되기 시작했다. 그런데 이와 같은 논의가 이루어지기 전에 선행되어야 할 과제가 있다. 바로, ‘혐오표현이란 무엇인가’라고 하는 혐오표현에 대한 개념정의의 문제이다. 즉, 현재 우리사회에는 혐오표현에 대한 규제의 필요성에 대한 공감대가 상당히 확산되어 있다. 그렇지만 그 규제대상인 혐오표현의 개념 정립이 아직 명확하지 않다. 따라서 혐오표현이란 무엇을 의미하며, 핵심적 개념요소가 무엇인가에 대한 개념정립은 본 연구의 출발점이다. 그러나 혐오표현의 문제점을 인식하는 개별 국가의 역사적 배경과 경험의 차이에서 발생하는 다양성으로 인해 개념정의에 상당한 어려움이 있다. 이에 ‘사전적 정의’, ‘국제인권법에서의 정의’, ‘학계의 동향’을 모두 살펴 본 다음, 공통된 구성요소를 정리함으로써, 혐오표현에 대한 개념정의를 시도하였다(Ⅱ). 이를 바탕으로 혐오표현이 표현의 자유 영역에 포함되지는 여부를 검토(Ⅲ)하였다. 다음으로, 혐오표현에 대한 국가의 개입과 법적규제에 대한 논의를 ‘혐오표현 규제옹호론’과 ‘혐오표현규제 반대론(표현의 자유 옹호론)’로 나누어 고찰한 다음, 각각의 주장에 대해 비판적으로 검토하였다(Ⅳ). 마지막으로, 혐오표현에 대한 바람직한 국가개입 및 규제방법에 대해 검토하였다(Ⅴ).We can easily encounter with the expressions ‘○○ woman’, ‘△△ man’ and more over, ‘□□ worm’. The cause of such expressions is not the display of personal idea or emotion but the fact that the target group has a specific attribute. In addition, its malaise is large as it is not the injury done by an individual but by the collective discrimination on the entire target group. Accordingly, in recent Korean society, a discussion has been initiated in full scale about how to understand the ‘hate speech’ along with ‘Freedom of Expression’. However, there is a task which must be preceded before such discussion is to be done. It is the issue to define the concept for the hate speech so called ‘What is Hate Speech?’. Namely, in our recent society, a consensus has been considerably expanded for the necessity of regulation on the hate speech. However, the establishment of the concept is not clear yet for the hate speech which is the target for regulation. Therefore, the establishment of a concept is the starting point of the present study regarding what is the meaning of hate speech and what is the core conceptual element. However, there exists considerable difficulty to define its concept due to the diversity occurred in the difference between historical background and experience of an individual country who recognizes the issue on hate speech. After examining ‘lexical definition’, ‘definition in terms of international human right law’, and ‘trend in academic sphere’ and organizing the common composition element, a conceptual definition has been tried for the hate speech&#40Ⅱ&#41. Based on this, it is examined whether the Hate speech is included in the Freedom of. Next, the discussion about the national involvement and legal regulation for the hate speech has been considered by dividing into ‘the theory of regulation support for hate speech’ and ‘the theory of opposition to regulation for hate speech &#40Theory of supporting the freedom of speech&#41. Next, each opinion has been reviewed critically&#40Ⅳ&#41 Finally, it is examined the desirable state intervention and regulation methods for the Hate speech&#40Ⅴ&#41.

Between Empirical Data and Anti-BlacknessA Critical Perspective on Anti-Asian Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents Janelle Wong (bio) and Rossina Zamora Liu (bio) After a US president (with connections to white nationalists), raised the specter of Yellow Peril and white shooters engaged in mass killings of Asian Americans in Atlanta and Indianapolis in the spring of 2021, white violence toward Asian Americans was difficult to ignore. Yet one leading story of anti-Asian violence in the wake of the pandemic is of an Asian American senior, often termed an "elder" in reporting, or young woman brutally beaten by a person who "appears to be Black." This story and others like it have circulated throughout the Asian American community via viral videos. The story has been the subject of calls for attention to "Black-Asian conflict" in the recent past.1 In March 2021, for example, Vox reporters noted that "Many of the attacks that have gained widespread attention have featured Black assailants, and have threatened to inflame tensions between Asian Americans and Black Americans."2 In April of 2021, a story by an NBC local affiliate in Seattle observed that "There have also been widely circulated videos that show Black men attacking Asian Americans."3 Meanwhile, survey and crime data suggest a different trend. Empirical data, for instance, shows that, compared to their share of the population, Asian American elders (over age 65) are underrepresented among victims of Asian American hate crimes and hate incidents. While women are more likely to report a hate incident to the StopAAPIHate reporting site, multiple sources of data show that men are as likely or more likely to experience a hate incident than women. Further, the vast majority of violence against Asian Americans [End Page 387] consists not of physical assaults but of verbal harassment and "shunning." The data also shows that Black offenders make up a minority of offenders. And, comparatively, Black Americans are up to ten times more likely to report being the victim of a hate crime than Asian Americans, and this pattern persists even in places like California, where Asian Americans comprise nearly double the population of Black Americans.4 This is true despite the fact that people of all racial backgrounds indicate that they are reluctant to report hate crimes. The point here is not to minimize the disturbing incidents, crimes, and even killings that have been widely circulated as part of anti-Asian hate media coverage; rather, placing these incidents in a broader context allows them to be better understood and ultimately addressed by well-informed policy. As two Asian American women and non-Black educators of Color, we seek to better understand the disconnection between the empirical data and the many Black-Asian conflict narratives of anti-Asian violence. We note that, despite a wealth of compelling empirical data, the media arc of anti-Asian violence—historically a symptom of white supremacy—quickly turned from the China-focused rhetoric of a white president and the heinous actions of white mass shooters to a focus on Black individuals physically assaulting Asian American elders. What is disturbing about this second narrative, which we describe as the "Black-on-Asian crime" narrative, is that it eclipses systematic racism captured by data, while gaining a widely accepted place in the discourse of Black aggression as a root cause of anti-Asian violence. The Black-on-Asian crime narrative has not only (re)ignited the Black-Asian conflict trope but seems to have also illuminated an undercurrent of anti-Blackness in narratives of Asian American victimization and perceptions of safety. In this paper, we present data regularly ignored in widely circulating Black-on-Asian crime narratives around anti-Asian violence, followed by a theoretically grounded reflection on the gap between empirical data and viral videos that emphasize Asian American vulnerability against the threat of Black violence. To be clear, we acknowledge that the anti-Asian incidents shown on viral videos are not only real and abhorrent but they have understandably elicited anger and fear in our community. What we hope to illustrate is the way in which these incidents have become prominent in discourses around anti-Asian violence, even though...

Given the recent number of hate-related incidents that have come to public attention, there is a significant need to collect and track these incidents in order to capture and share trends with the wider public. Outside of official hate crime data (such as annual government reports), incidents fueled by hate (but that are not crimes) often go undocumented. To address this gap, the Alberta Hate Crimes Committee – a Canadian coalition of law enforcement, government, and non-governmental organizations – developed the StopHateAB.ca website. The purpose of the StopHateAb.ca website is to fill this gap by creating a space to capture hate incidents to document and make accessible information related to hate incidents. This article will describe the development of the online hate incident reporting tool StopHateAB.ca. Through a discussion of the strengths and challenges of creating an online hate incident reporting platform, this paper will highlight the importance of innovative responses to counter hate and bias by making hate visible. As this article highlights, making hate visible forces communities to engage in joint conversations about hate and bias to support strategies that foster a public social environment of justice, equity, and human rights.

This study examines staff and student perspectives of the use of restorative justice approaches to respond to student-on-student hate crime, hate incidents, and hate speech on university campuses. It draws on qualitative data collated over a one-year period, during the design and establishment of a restorative programme entitled ‘Restore Respect’ at two UK universities. Highlighting examples of students’ experiences of prejudice and hate across the two universities, we outline some of the key barriers to reporting associated with conventional university responses, as well as staff and student views of establishing a new restorative approach to addressing incidents. While early-stage evaluation revealed certain cultural and institutional barriers and limitations to the establishment and operation of a restorative programme, the majority of staff and students viewed it as an effective way of addressing hate-based conduct that would provide greater opportunity for more positive interventions and outcomes. The paper concludes by arguing for a renewed effort to move beyond standard institutional responses to student experiences of hate and prejudice at university through the adoption of restorative, needs-centred approaches.