Formulating the legislative structure of a hate crime

While hate crime legislation is well established in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, Ireland has failed to address the issue of hate crime on a statutory basis. Law reform processes are currently underway across these jurisdictions, and this article seeks to explore a fundamental question in this context, that is, the relative merits of various approaches to structuring hate crime legislation.

The authors of this article had been working on the issue of hate crime from within frustrated disciplinary silos: from a sociological perspective, and from a legal perspective. In 2012, however, we began to discuss potential avenues for interdisciplinary research: tentative at first, and then with increasing energy and determination. In September 2014, the Hate and Hostility Research Group at the University of Limerick launched A Life Free From Fear – Legislating for Hate Crime in Ireland: An NGO Perspective. The Report presents the perspectives of civil society organisations who endeavour to challenge hate crime, and provides an analysis of the efficacy of Irish legislation in this area. The report received widespread media attention for the issue of hate crime and, at least in the short term, has been successful in placing it on the political agenda. This article will provide an overview of some key concerns relating to hate crime in an Irish context and conclude by raising the question of the relevance of this emergent field of research to Irish sociology.

In England and Wales, legislation pertaining to hate crime recognizes hostility based on racial identity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity. Discussions abound as to whether this legislation should also recognize hostility based on gender or misogyny. Taking a socio-legal analysis, the chapter examines hate crime, gender-based victimization and misogyny alongside the impact of victim identity construction, access to justice and the international nature of gendered harm. The chapter provides a comprehensive investigation of gender-based victimization in relation to targeted hostility to assess the potential for its inclusion in hate crime legislation in England and Wales.

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.

Genome editing, also known as gene editing, is one of a group of precision breeding techniques used to develop new varieties of plants and to introduce variation in animals. Plants and animals developed using these techniques can then be used for food. Genome editing in food may be an area of policy divergence now that the UK has left the EU, as the UK government vocally intends to drive change in this area.1The Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) environmental releases legislation (stemming from EU legislation) underpins the current GM food and feed regulations. The Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) holds the lead responsibility for GMO legislation in England and for genome editing which currently falls under it. GMO regulation and policy is devolved in the UK, with the devolved governments having separate legislation. The responsibility of food and feed produced from GMOs is held by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) in Scotland. Under the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland is obliged to align with EU Single Market rules on food and feed, which includes matters related to GMOs.The UK Government disagreed with the 2018 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling that genome edited organisms should be regulated as GMOs even when the outcomes could have been generated by traditional breeding methods.2 There is now interest in reviewing the regulation of genome editing, which requires changing the definition of a GMO in legislation. Defra ran a public consultation from January to March 2021 on genetic technologies including a proposal to change the legislation to amend the definition of a GMO. Defra will use consultation responses to help decide whether to change this legislation in England.3This research project was commissioned to run alongside the Defra consultation, and complements the Defra consultation by gathering evidence on consumer interests 1 Government website page with Boris Johnsons first speech as Prime Minister2 Government consultation page which states the Government’s disagreement with the EJC ruling3 The webpage for the DEFRA consultation on genetic technologies 5 specifically, to help inform future food policy. This research will also help inform communications with consumers if new genome edited food policy is introduced. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct a mixed methods social science research project. The qualitative stage of this research consisted of a series of online deliberative dialogue workshops, bridged by an online community, with 80 consumers across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This was followed by a quantitative online survey of 2,066 consumers representative of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There is no one definition of genome editing used in the UK, either in legislation nor one that has been agreed by the UK Government, and the FSA recognises that genome editing uses a spectrum of tools and can result in a range of modifications. The definition used for this project covers a specific sub-set of genome editing outcomes and was agreed between internal and external experts for the purpose of the consumer workshops in order to align with the parallel Defra consultation definition. The definition of genome editing used for this study therefore focuses specifically on genome editing in plants and animals that could also be achieved using traditional breeding (referred to as conventional breeding throughout this report).

Making disablist hate crime visible: addressing the challenges of improving reporting: Chih Hoong Sin

Hate Crime is a field of increasing concern in academic, activist and the policy domains (Chakraborti 2010). This first comprehensive critical account of hate crime in the Irish context provides a unique contribution to the field of hate studies and activism. The originality of this edited collection is underscored by three features of this book. Firstly, it brings insights from the Republic of Ireland, as the only jurisdiction without hate crime legislation in Western Europe. Secondly, it offers perspectives from the Northern Irish context enabling consideration of hate crime issues in a post-conflict society. Thirdly, and a defining feature of the book, the diversity of contributions achieves a balance between academics, activists, policy makers and practitioners.

ABSTRACTMinimal studies have investigated individuals’ evaluations of antigay hate crimes and hate crime legislation simultaneously, with most research focusing on one or the other. In a sample of 246 heterosexual undergraduates, the present study found that evaluations of antigay hate crimes and hate crime legislation were unrelated. Higher social dominance orientation (SDO) and crime control orientation scores were associated with more positive evaluations of antigay hate crimes. Positive evaluations of hate crime legislation were associated with more positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. We also found that the relationship between SDO and evaluations were mediated by crime control beliefs (for hate crimes evaluations) and antigay attitudes (for hate crime legislation evaluations). The present findings have possible implications for the manner in which organizations advocate for the extension of hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation.

Pushing the boundaries in Northern Ireland: young people, violence and sectarianism

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

This article examines whether crimes motivated by, or which demonstrate, gender ‘hostility’ should be included within the current framework of hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The article uses the example of rape to explore the parallels (both conceptual and evidential) between gender‐motivated violence and other ‘archetypal’ forms of hate crime. It is asserted that where there is clear evidence of gender hostility during the commission of an offence, a defendant should be pursued in lawadditionallyas a hate crime offender. In particular it is argued that by focusing on the hate‐motivation of many sexual violence offenders, the criminal justice system can begin to move away from its current focus on the ‘sexual’ motivations of offenders and begin to more effectively challenge the gendered prejudices that are frequently causal to such crimes.

Hate crime is a disturbing phenomenon that is the subject of constant debate, discussion, and legislation. This book helps readers understand the complex issue and see how the government and activists are proactively combating hate crime. With the first two editions widely praised by reviewers, Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook, Third Edition remains the most comprehensive reference source on bias-motivated violence committed in the United States. The book contains vital history on hate crime legislation, provides a detailed chronology of recent events, and offers the most up-to-date information on its prevalence and the affected religious, racial, and other targeted communities, such as Jewish Americans and Sikh Americans. Dozens of expert contributors—such as Kenneth L. Marcus, president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law—present a balanced range of perspectives on the growing phenomenon, enabling readers to fully comprehend the widespread problem and develop their own informed opinion. Written in an accessible style suited to high school and undergraduate-level students as well as general readers, this book provides an essential, current, and easy-to-read ready reference on the timely and evolving issue of hate crime in the United States. The material provides an introductory overview of the topic of hate crime as well as insightful discussion of specific subjects, such as U.S. Supreme Court decisions and federal and state legislation regarding hate crimes, the incidence of hate crimes committed on America's college campuses, and governmental and citizen efforts to combat this disturbing phenomenon.

Following the rise in hate crime in Northern Ireland, in 2019 the Northern Ireland Assembly appointed Judge Marrinan to conduct a review into hate crime. Publishing his findings in his review in December 2020, this article examines the key recommendations that should be included in a Hate Crime Bill. As the Assembly is currently suspended, the article examines the hate crime statistics recorded following the publication of the review to illustrate why it is imperative that when it reconvenes, the Assembly introduce a Hate Crime Bill at the earliest opportunity. The article also argues that a prevention programme is introduced alongside the Bill to safeguard and prevent young people being drawn towards paramilitary activity along with hate crime and non-paramilitary terrorist activity. Young people are the focus of introducing an initial programme with the demographics in the hate crime statistics revealing a high number of offenders are that category. Following an examination of current programmes in place and the threat posed by paramilitaries and extremists, including the far right and extreme far right (neo-Nazis), the article recommends the current WRAP programme is developed to help and safeguard young people drawn to the paramilitaries to include hate crime and extremist related terrorism.

Barbara Perry (2003) Hate and Bias Crime:A Reader Routledge: New York, 520 pp., ISBN 0415944082.The last decade of the 20th century has seen a flurry of hate crime legislation and other state activities, none of which have had an appreciable effect on the frequency or certainly the severity of hate crime. Such initiatives are insufficient responses to bias-motivated violence, in that they do not touch the underlying structures that support hate crime. Abdicating responsibility for countering such violence to the state, then, will not be a sufficiently effective long-term strategy. Rather, the responsibility must be shared and distributed across institutional and interactional levels. Moreover, the ultimate goal is not only to attack hate crime, but to disrupt the institutional and cultural assumptions about difference that condition hate crime. To the extent that difference is socially constructed, it can also be reconstructed (Perry, 2003, p. 387)

Barbara Perry (2003) Hate and Bias Crime:A Reader Routledge: New York, 520 pp., ISBN 0415944082. The last decade of the 20th century has seen a flurry of hate crime legislation and other state activities, none of which have had an appreciable effect on the frequency or certainly the severity of hate crime. Such initiatives are insufficient responses to bias-motivated violence, in that they do not touch the underlying structures that support hate crime. Abdicating responsibility for countering such violence to the state, then, will not be a sufficiently effective long-term strategy. Rather, the responsibility must be shared and distributed across institutional and interactional levels. Moreover, the ultimate goal is not only to attack hate crime, but to disrupt the institutional and cultural assumptions about difference that condition hate crime. To the extent that difference is socially constructed, it can also be reconstructed (Perry, 2003, p. 387)