Bias Crime in a Multi-Cultural Society

This paper aims to examine the significance of xenophobia and hate crimes in multicultural societies. It begins with outlining the general discussions about multiculturalism, xenophobia and hate crimes. It identifies hate crimes that related to xenophobia in multicultural society and introduces hate crime laws in Australia. While Australian multicultural policy has its roots in government responses to the post settlement issues facing migrants, through the 1980s and 1990s policy was articulated more broadly as an element of Australia's nation building narratives. Today all Australian States and Territories have active policies and programs dealing with multiculturalism. As other multicultural societies, Australia confronts with challenges in building a multicultural society. One of them is xenophobia and hate crimes related to race, ethnic, religions. A number of common law countries have introduced legislation designed to respond to the problem of prejudice-related crime, commonly referred to as hate crime law. Whilst the heavier penalties imposed by hate crime laws are designed to denounce, and thereby deter, prejudice-related violence, it is apparent that these laws are meant to do more than punish and deter. They aim to condemn, not just criminal conduct per se, but also racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and the like. In this way Australia seek to make a broad moral claim that prejudice is wrong and to thereby reinforce pro-social values of tolerance and respect for marginalized and disadvantaged groups. This paper argues that hate crime laws are necessary in order to prevent hate crimes related to multiculturalism and suggests that Australian hate crime laws can be implied to sustain multiculturalism in Korea.

The Hate Crimes Project in the United States, the expanded use of criminal legislation creating enhanced punishment for bias-motivated crimes, is now over twenty-five years old. Today, virtually every state expressly criminalizes bias crimes. Over this quarter century, states have employed different forms of bias crime laws, some focusing on the animus exhibited by the perpetrator of a crime against a member (actual or perceived) of a racial, ethnic, religious, or other included Group, others focusing on the perpetrator's discriminatory selection of his or her victim. Now is therefore a propitious time to begin to evaluate the societal gains and risks associated with bias crime, law enforcement. This paper sets out a framework from which to understand bias crime law, and then considers and addresses many of the issues raised by opponents of the bias crime program. The paper considers four issues in particular. First, opponents have argued that the enhanced punishment of bias crime calls greater attention to racial and ethnic differences in society, therefore exacerbating, not helping, social divisions. Second, those opposed to expanded prosecution for bias-motivated crimes have argued that the bias crime enforcement unconstitutionally, or in any event unwisely, punishes thought and expression, not criminal acts. Third, bias crimes opponents have argued that the potential for selective enforcement of bias crime statutes exists, harming the most disadvantaged members of society and ironically those whom bias crime laws are intended to help. Fourth, opponents question one of the prime justifications for the enhanced punishment of bias crimes - that these crimes cause a greater harm than similar crime without bias motivation - claiming that the bias motivation of the perpetrator per se is not the cause of the harm. Bias crimes per se, the argument goes, should not receive enhanced punishment, rather only crimes, any crimes, that cause these great harms. Finally, the paper offers some observations as to the most general challenge that may be asserted against bias crimes laws: the argument that these laws don't work, that is, that these laws do not prevent or even appreciably reduce levels of bias in society, or even levels of bias crimes. The paper argues that in some ways there is no real answer to this question of whether bias crime laws work but I further argue, in the classic words of the late Alexander Bickel, that no answer is what the wrong question begets. Instead of asking questions about reduction of certain types of crime or ever more so, certain types of social attitudes, we do better to ask whether bias crime laws punish that which society rightly condemns. Taking that path, we are led toward the implications of using bias crime law as a window into a society's self-perception as a multi-cultural society. The extent to which this will end bigotry in society will inevitably be an inquiry that is more aspirational than empirical.

The sociology of sport literature details the nature and extent of racism in sport – mostly men’s sport, and in particular men’s football. The literature shows that racism was present in the men’s game in the United Kingdom (UK) before, and after, the inception of the 1993 Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football campaign (now Kick it Out). Sport sociologists have offered critical accounts of how racism impacts men’s football and men footballers. These analyses rarely cover women’s experiences or intersect with constructions of hate crimes and misogyny. Despite significant campaigning by feminist criminologists, the Law Commission, in its 2021 review, has recommended not to add misogyny to hate crime legislation. Currently, the law in England and Wales protects race or ethnicity, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. Hate crime literature has failed to consider the intersections of multiple forms of marginalization, such as the impact of both race and gender. Despite many police forces in England and Wales collecting data on misogyny, prosecutions are limited to the existing five hate crime strands, thus reducing the experiences of many women and girls to a single identity characteristic. This fails to acknowledge the reality of their lived experiences. In this chapter, we review the shortfalls in both sociological and criminological analyses of gender and racism in football. We demonstrate the value of a focus on women footballers in developing a feminist approach to gender, racism and hate crimes. In this way, we conclude that it is time to connect sexism, racism, misogynoir and football to ensure a hate crime framework that includes women and girls in sport.

Hate/bias crime against racial/ethnic minorities in the United States: A systematic review of empirical research and assessment of next steps

This chapter uses data from the British Crime Survey to examine the harms of ‘hate crime’ as experienced by victims. It offers new perspectives on the longstanding debate about the desirability of ‘hate crime’ laws in the United Kingdom. The punitive sanctions introduced by such laws might be viewed in some quarters as being an unwelcome case of the decline of ‘penal welfarism’ and correctionalism and the rise of punitive and expressive justice. However, the provision of equal concern and respect for all people, and respect for difference — principles that provide the motivating impetus for advocates of ‘hate crime’ laws — constitute a central plank of political liberalism. And against those who have argued that ‘hate crime’ laws use illiberal means to achieve liberal ends, the chapter argues that the harsher punishment of ‘hate crime’ offenders compared with offenders in parallel crimes seems to be justified by the liberal principle of proportionate sentencing and provides offenders with their just deserts, given the strength of the evidence that ‘hate crimes’ inflict greater harms than parallel crimes.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Isn’t Every Crime a Hate Crime? The Case for Hate Crime Laws

This research to describe social attitude integration and ethnic prejudice in multicultural society. The research took place in Yogyakarta Municipality and Sleman Regency, Yogyakarta Special Province, based on consideration that the location resided by families of multicultures (heterogen), prone to interethnic conflict and brawl. Data gathering technique were interview and observation, respondents were 50 people of each location, whole was 100 respondents. Data analysis was qualitative-descriptive technique. The research showed that 79 percent respondents having social integration attitude, 21 percent having ethnic prejudice. The prevention against widening and deteriorating conflict, flaring up, social brawl are to enhance understanding, consiousness, and benefiting pluralism or various cultures as potensial resources, strength for joint progress. Social dialogue facility and communal activity by government and community need to be done. To the Directorate of Social Protection for Social Disaster Victims (PSKBS), General Directorate of Social Protection and Assurance, The Ministry of Social Affairs, need to hold a program on enhancing communal capacity (family) through socialization, education, and training of social harmony management (social integration) to prevent social conflict, set up interethnic community forum that can fill pluralism value so that families and community resilience can be realized.

COVID-19, originally reported in China, has brought an increase in anti-Asian and Asian American hate incidents and crimes in the United States. However, research on hate incidents and crimes are relatively new in the field of geography. To provide better ways to investigate hate crime incidents against Asians and Asian Americans during COVID-19, this article draws on various research methods from existing studies on hate crimes. Geographers have focused attention on minority groups linked to different geographic scales, and non-geographic studies have focused mainly on psychological symptoms and impacts on health. Even though existing studies have helped broaden the knowledge of the subject, the geographic aspects of the issue require further examination. This article suggests that geographers should pay more attention to four aspects of research in hate crimes and incidents for future research: avoiding oversimplified concepts, reconsidering relational aspects within the local community, identifying intersectionality and everydayness of people, and engaging more with the practice of the law enforcement and the local communities.

Hate crimes are crimes that are motivated by personal prejudice or bias. Hate-crime laws criminalise such conduct and allow for the imposition of aggravated penalties on convicted perpetrators. This article examines the historical, social and political factors which influenced the shaping and enactment of the first British hate-crime law. The South African context is also considered since the Department of Justice has recently released the Prevention and Combatting of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill for public commentary and input. While Britain has had a long historical record of criminal conduct that was motivated by the race and the ethnicity of victims, it was only in the twentieth century that civil society first drew attention to the problem of violent racist crimes. Nevertheless, successive British governments denied the problem of racist crimes and refused to consider the enactment of a hate-crime law. Following a high-profile racist murder and a governmental inquiry, a British Labour Party-led government eventually honoured its pre-election commitment and passed a hate-crime law in 1998. Some parallels are apparent between the British and the South African contexts. South Africa also has a long historical record of racially motivated hate crimes. Moreover, in the post-apartheid era there have been numerous reports of racist hate crimes and hate crimes against Black lesbian women and Black foreigners. Despite several appeals from the academic and non-governmental sectors for the enactment of a hate-crime law, and the circulation for public commentary of the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, such a law has hitherto not been enacted in South Africa. This article posits that the enactment of a hate-crime law is a constitutional imperative in South Africa in terms of the right to equality and the right to freedom and security of the person. While the enactment of a hate-crime law in South Africa is recommended, it is conceded that enacting a hate-crime law will not eradicate criminal conduct motivated by prejudice and bias.

In this chapter, the author outlines some of the significant operational challenges that the police face in their efforts to prevent hate crime, brings offenders to justice, and builds positive relationships with the affected communities. He use examples from the United Kingdom (UK) to demonstrate these challenges including: the under-reporting of hate crime, the relationship between hostility and public disorder, the challenges of policing hate crime on the internet, hate crime targeting disabled victims, and the under-reporting of hate crime. In those countries such as the UK, where the Police have prosecuted Internet hate crimes, there are some important principles for courts to rule on. In 2008, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Hate Crime Group carried out a review of existing third-party reporting schemes. Police and prosecution leaders acknowledge that there was a need to address the challenges of effectively responding to disability hate crime.

violation of the equality ideal. At most, this latter conception of bias crime statutes can assert that crimes based on the protected characteristics threaten the equality ideal because these characteristics have generally been the basis of past discrimination—but they cannot locate either the harm risked by the perpetrator or his individual culpability more precisely. 2. The Potential Underinclusiveness Problem This proposed solution to the overinclusiveness problem of bias crimes does not address the potential underinclusiveness question. Why, for example, are the elderly and the disabled typically not included within bias crime statutes? Formulating the list of protected characteristics that should be included within bias crimes statutes is a complex question without a single solution whose full elaboration is beyond the scope of this article. A few points, however, follow naturally from the above analysis. Clearly, political factors influence the calculation of the proper scope of bias crime laws, as debates over the inclusion of gender and sexual orientation as protected characteristics demonstrate. In response to political pressure, the scope of bias crimes has been rapidly increasing. This phenomenon threatens to seriously weaken bias crime laws. Legislative judgment about which characteristics are likely to make their bearers targets of violent discrimination helps sharpen the focus of bias crimes, feeding more clearly into the historical experience that justifies the penalty enhancement associated with these crimes. Having too many groups including within 149. See, e.g., Julie Goldscheid, Gender-Motivated Violence: Developing A Meaningful Paradigm for Civil Rights Enforcement, 22 Harv. Women’s L.J. 123 (1999). 150. Martin S. Zwerling, Legislating Against Hate in New York: Bias Crimes and the Lesbian and Gay Community, 11 Touro L. Rev. 529 (1995); Anthony S. Winer, Hate Crimes, Homosexuals, and the Constitution, 29 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 387 (1994). 151. Historical and contemporary social contexts suggest why certain aspects of peoples’ identity provoke a strong sense of solidarity with other members of the This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 447 the definition of bias crimes risks reducing the higher stigma associated with this kind of crime. Generally rejecting the expansion of bias crime statutes, however, does not resolve the question of which groups should properly be included within their reach. Whether gender should be considered a protected characteristic, for example, demonstrates the difficulty of the inquiry about which characteristics should be included and which should be excluded. Women have historically been subjected to discrimination in many facets of their lives, including voting and employment. Whether women are still subject to widespread discrimination is less obvious. The model of bias crime presented here focuses on the perpetrator’s choice of the victim as a representative of a group of which he is a member. The victim’s group affiliation has more importance than any individual characteristics of the victim; indeed, this is what distinguishes bias crimes from general vulnerable victim statutes. Thus, some crimes typically committed against women, like acquaintance rape, fit uncomfortably within the bias crimes model. The question of whether gender group. For these reasons, vulnerability can and should be seen as especially salient along the dimensions of the protected characteristics currently articulated in existing bias crimes. Thus, I believe that Kenneth Simons’s response to Harel & Parchomovsky’s article is misguided. See Simons, supra note 21, at 241 (arguing that race, religion, and the other characteristics protected by bias crimes are less important predictors of victims’ vulnerability due to other factors, like “geography, wealth, class, and similar factors”). Vulnerability generally might be more dependent on the factors that Simon mentions, but these characteristics are less likely to constitute the basis of widespread harm to other members of the “group,” precisely because the relevant characteristics are less salient to their members. 152. Cf. William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law 114 (2000) (arguing for a narrow definition of the crime of genocide: “for society to define a crime so heinous that it will occur only rarely is testimony to the value of such a precise formulation. Diluting the definition, either by formal amendment or its terms or by extravagant interpretation of the existing text, risks trivializing the horror of the real crime when it is committed”). 153. Perhaps the problem can be resolved through the statutory formulation of bias crimes. In a bias crime, the perpetrator must select the victim in at least substantial part because of his or her membership in a protected group. The acquaintance rapist might not primarily select his victim because she is a woman but instead because of some other characteristic. If that characteristic is not This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 448 BUFFALO CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:389 should be included in bias crimes statutes should turn on the pervasiveness of discrimination against women, and how many of the crimes committed against women reflect perpetration because of their identity as women, rather than other factors less central to the purpose of bias crime statutes. The discussion of bias crimes in this article also provides legislators with other criteria they might use when evaluating the propriety of expanding the scope of characteristics protected by bias crimes. History is clearly an important factor. Has the characteristic historically been the basis for discrimination? Race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion easily qualify here, as would sexual orientation. Contemporary circumstances must also be considered. Prejudices that were vivid hundreds of years ago but have no contemporary currency clearly should not be included within these statutes. Legislators should also consider the particular characteristics of discrimination within their jurisdiction. Some groups, one could imagine, would be likely targets of discrimination across the United States and thus would be included in all bias crime statutes, while others might be particularly vulnerable only in particular regions. specifically included within the reach of the bias crime statute, the acquaintance rape should not be considered a bias crime. Even assuming, however, that the “because of” formula helps distinguish between crimes that fit within the bias crimes model and those that do not, this resolution does not identify which characteristics should be included within the statute generally. 154. Cf. United States v. McCall, 174 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (construing the federal vulnerable victim enhancement and stating “broad generalizations about victims based upon their membership in a class are disfavored where a very substantial portion of the class is not in fact particularly vulnerable to the crime in question. In such cases, courts have required that the enhancement be based on individualized findings as to the vulnerability of particular victims”). While individualized findings as to particular victims would not be appropriate for bias crimes statutes because of the relative importance of the group over the individual, considering the proportion of crimes committed against members of a group that are likely to be considered bias crimes might prove a useful way of determining whether or not the characteristic should be included within the bias crime statute. 155. Gays and lesbians, for example, might fit this description. See Herek, supra note 14, at 945 (noting that “sexual prejudice is still acceptable in many quarters of American society”). I imagine that African Americans, Latinos, and other minority racial groups would also likely be considered vulnerable groups This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:56:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DANNERMACRO 5/5/2003 4:42 PM 2002] CULPABILITY IN CONTEXT 449 Legislators also might consider whether the characteristic is likely to make the victims subject to attack because of social discrimination against this group or because it is a proxy for some other quality, such as physical helplessness. This type of inquiry makes some characteristics, like age and disability, problematic for inclusion within the reach of bias crime statutes. While crimes against the elderly should certainly be seen as crimes targeting vulnerable victims, they should not be defined as bias crimes. Discrimination—not opportunism— is the foundation of the bias crime perpetrator’s culpability. If one believes, as I do, that the category of bias crimes should be narrow, inevitably groups that resemble those already included within the reach of bias crime statues will feel unfairly excluded. As Jacobs and Potter point out in their comprehensive critique of bias crimes, the judgment about the proper scope of these statutes is inescapably political. While the legislative crafting of bias crime statutes should be informed by clear questions and criteria, the difficulty of the inquiry is unavoidable.

The introduction of racially aggravated offences in Part II of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (the Act) represents a major shift in the state response to violence and harassment of minorities in the United Kingdom (UK).1 It comes at a time when 'racial violence' is increasingly recognised as a persistent social problem. High profile incidents such as the Stephen Lawrence enquiry have ensured that the debate about the relationship between racial violence, crime and law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom has taken on greater urgency.2 Previous governments resisted pressure to introduce a specific criminal offence of racial violence and harassment. In 1994, the Home Secretary, Michael Howard summarised this approach in setting out the Government's objection to the Home Affairs Committee's call to introduce such an offence in its report on Racial Attacks and Harrassment: 'All violent crimes, regardless of motivation, can already be dealt with properly under existing legislation'.3 In a sharp contrast to this approach, the Labour Party election manifesto stated that 'Britain is a multiracial and multicultural society. All of its members must have the protection of the law. We will create a new offence of racial harassment and a new crime of

Hate crime is a problem in many countries around the world. Scholars define hate crimes as unlawful conduct directed at different target groups, which can include violent acts, property damage, harassment, and trespassing (see Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology 27.1 [2001]: 479–504). Hate crime perpetrators target their victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or disability, but also a variety of other characteristics. Several social movements (e.g., the civil rights movement, women’s movement, and LGBT movement) laid the foundation for anti-violence movements and placed the hate crime discourse on the political and legislative agenda. One way to better understand hate crime is to explore how governments in different parts of the world address the issue of crimes motivated by hate or prejudice. Targeted laws and policies transformed hate violence from ordinary to extraordinary crime (see Hate crime policy in western Europe: Responding to racist violence in Britain, Germany, and France. American Behavioral Scientist 51.2 [2007]: 149–165). Different countries implemented hate crime legislation in order to condemn crime committed due to prejudice or bias against an individual or group of people, introducing such legislation during different periods in time. The United States emerged as the leader of hate crime policy approaches, implementing legal responses to prejudice and bias in the early 20th century. The United States was also the first country to circulate the term “hate crime” during the 1980s (see Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology 27.1 [2001]: 479–504). Europe and the Asia-Pacific region followed suit in implementing their own responses to hate crime. The diversity of hate crime legislation in different countries makes it difficult to combine the legislative contexts under a common framework. A controversial debate exists around the need for a separate set of hate crime legislation. Scholars dispute the seriousness of the hate crime offense, the possibilities of proving motivational aspects of the hate crime, criminalizing hate, and introducing more severe punishments. They also debate the utilization of the civil versus the criminal code, the inclusion of different protected categories under hate crime legislation, the symbolic character of hate crime, and the social and political impact of hate crime legislation. This bibliography reviews key resources on hate crime legislation, including its historical context, its globalization, and the socio-criminological debate around hate crime legislation.

This article investigates the effects of ethnic acceptance and prejudice on English language learning among immigrant nonnative speakers. During 2004 and 2005, the author conducted participatory dialogues among six Vietnamese and Mexican adult immigrant English language learners. The researcher sought to answer five questions: (1) What are some nonnative English speakers’ experience regarding the way native speakers treat them? (2) How have nonnative English speakers’ experiences of ethnic acceptance or ethnic prejudice affected their learning of English? (3) What do nonnative English speakers think they need in order to lower their anxiety as they learn a new language? (4) What can native English speakers do to lower nonnative speakers’ anxiety? (5) What can nonnative English speakers do to lower their anxiety with native English speakers? Even though many of the adult immigrant participants experienced ethnic prejudice, they developed strategies to overcome anxiety, frustration, and fear. The dialogues generated themes of acceptance, prejudice, power, motivation, belonging, and perseverance, all factors essential to consider when developing English language learning programs for adult immigrants.

My purpose in this article is to address issues that arise with the emergence of “hate crime” law as a response to violence against historically subordinated groups, with particular reference to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered (henceforth “GLBT”), and otherwise queer citizens. The specific jurisdictional context of my reflection is the USA but the issues I raise have significance beyond that context. Increasingly in recent years hate crime legislation has been adopted or proposed in the US as well as other jurisdictions as a response to bigotry and violence directed against minority groups in multi-cultural societies. In 2006 in the UK, proposals to outlaw “incitement to religious hatred” were hotly debated. In 2008 demands are being made to extend the ‘incitement laws’ to include incitement to homophobic hatred. In 2007 in the US the Senate and House of Representatives in Washington DC passed an Act, which some described as the Matthew Shepard Act, to promote and enhance the use of the criminal law against perpetrators of crimes motivated by hatred based on perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. Ultimately the Act failed to become law. The debates in the UK and US provide the backdrop against which I want to examine the arguments for and against hate crime legislation, both generally and with specific application to queer citizens. This require us to think again about the relation of queer citizens to the state, the reach of political equality and human rights, and the aims and limits of the criminal law and system of “criminal justice”.