Abstract
The implications of specifying certain identity categories have been widely debated in the context of hate crime laws and policies. However, they have been less thoroughly examined in the particular contexts of hate speech. Although the majority of laws regulating speech do not differentiate between identity categories, the ‘stirring up’ offences of the United Kingdom Public Order Act 1986 are stratified along grounds of race, religion and sexual orientation. This article argues that, while the concerns raised about identity categories in relation to hate crime legislation are equally relevant to the stirring up provisions, the proposed solutions cannot automatically be transposed to hate speech offences. Accordingly, this article explores challenges that are encountered in attempts to make hate crime and hate speech legislation more inclusive before advancing some tentative suggestions for how hate speech laws might move beyond identity silos.
Highlights
According to Mason-Bish, ‘The silo approach to hate crime policy is arguably one of its defining features and biggest problems’ (2014: 167)
This article focuses on the hate speech legislation, which is contained within Parts III and IIIA of the Public Order Act 1986
While the inclusion of discrete identity categories within this legislation can be subjected to the same criticisms as identity silos in hate crime laws, this article argues that hate speech presents distinct challenges to the construction of more inclusive legislation
Summary
According to Mason-Bish, ‘The silo approach to hate crime policy is arguably one of its defining features and biggest problems’ (2014: 167). What is referred to here as the ‘silo approach’ is the construction or enhancement of criminal offences penalising hatred, hostility or prejudice on grounds of a finite selection of discrete identity categories, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity Both advocates and opponents of anti-hate legislation (for example, Schweppe 2012 and Heinze 2009, respectively) have argued that such an approach is too narrow to reflect the wide variety of experiences of hatred, and that the corresponding legislation is, partial and discriminatory. While the inclusion of discrete identity categories within this legislation can be subjected to the same criticisms as identity silos in hate crime laws, this article argues that hate speech presents distinct challenges to the construction of more inclusive legislation These challenges are explored and some tentative solutions are suggested in the last section.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
