Q1.
What is the difference between hate crimes and hate incidents?
Submit
Next By Matteo Vergani
Introduction
How can we define hate? In 2018, Agneta Fischer and colleagues published an article titled “Why we hate”, where they define hate as a stable negative disposition towards an object. If anger is a momentary feeling, hate is sustained, and it is motivated by “what people are” rather than by “what they do”. Hate can be a precursor of individual and group violence and conflict and can feed further hate. Hate is often fuelled by feelings of desperation, a lack of control and powerlessness, and it is associated with a willingness to obliterate and destroy the enemy. Haters do not need to know the people they hate, but only what they represent. In this sense, hate can be a precursor of both hate crime and violent extremism.
| In this module In this module, you will be introduced to key debates and perspectives regarding the definitions of hate crime, hate incidents, hateful extremism, violent extremism and terrorism. Some of these concepts have large areas of overlap, but also important differences. At the end of this module, you will be able to understand the differences and similarities in the definitions of these terms, and you will be familiar with key definitions adopted by international governmental agencies and civil society organizations. |
Why is it important to agree on common definitions of hate and extremism?
Not all scholars are convinced that “hate” is a useful term. Since the 1980s, there has been considerable debate about the utility of the concept of “hate crime” and the best terminology to define it ( “hate crime”, “bias crime”, “targeted crime”, “prejudice-motivated crime”, etc.). While we agree with many of the critiques of the concept of “hate” (in short: it’s ambiguous, it’s ideological and it’s unclear whether hating should be a crime in itself), we also keep in mind that the term “hate” is commonly used by policymakers, victims and journalists, and that people associate it with hate crime. Victims who look for support search for words like “hate crime” on Google. For this reason, we decided to use the term “hate” in this project, even if we agree that it is not fully accurate and precise. Tellingly, “hate” is often absent from definitions of hate crime, which more often use concepts like “bias” and “prejudice”.
If we want to tackle “hate” and “extremism” in all their forms, including hate speech, hate crime, hate incidents, hateful extremism and violent extremism, we need to establish a common culture for and approach to defining these terms. Definitions are very important for practitioners working on tackling hate because they allow them to do the following:
1 . To improve collective discussion. It is important to improve clarity of discussion between civil society organisations, academics, human rights commission, police and other stakeholders who might want to start a collaboration. It’s also important to improve clarity of communications between these organisations, the media, communities and the public.
2. To underpin data collection efforts. Differences in definitions among organizations that collect data about hate crime and hate incidents can distort the understanding of the phenomenon. It can distort the understanding of the magnitude of the phenomenon, and distort trends in and comparisons of hate between different communities.
| Hate crime and far-right violent extremism
If you want to read more about he overlaps between hate crime and violence committed by extremist groups, please find here a report from the ICCT about Extreme-Right Violence in Europe. This report discusses (among other things) how sometimes national statistics count hate crime under different labels, such as extremist violence and terrorism, depending on the definitions. For this reason, trends of hate are usually not comparable across time and between states (even within the same countries) because the same types of events are counted under different labels, or different types of events under the same label. |
What is hate crime?
“Hate crime” usually refers to criminal offences (any criminal offence) motivated by bias.
It is important to remember that:
1) Hate crimes are also “message” crimes, used to convey fear, hostility and suspicion on victims and connected communities and groups. Hate crimes provoke emotional and psychological consequences like sustained fear among both victims and others who perceive to share the same identity
2) The individual victim often is not significant to the perpetrator except as a member of the targeted group (in most cases … with notable exceptions, for example among LGBTIQ+ groups, people living with disabilities and elders).
The following video provides a clear and synthetic overview of what is generally considered as a hate crime.
What are hate incidents?
Hate incidents are malicious acts motivated by bias. They include both crimes and acts that do not constitute a crime under current legislation.
In Victoria, a group of academics, members of government agencies and civil society organizations and journalists from community media outlets have been meeting since July 2019 to build a collective approach to hate-related issues in Victoria. The group is convened by the Centre for Resilient and Inclusive Societies (CRIS), and it aims to collaboratively address policy, programmes and research agendas in Victoria in the context of hate-related incidences threatening social cohesion and individuals.
One of the first discussions of this group was about a common definition of “prejudice-motivated incidents” (which was preferred to the term “hate incidents”) to inform all activities and public communications undertaken by the group. The definition is the following:
A prejudice-motivated incident is any incident in which any person believes that a person, property or group is targeted because of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, trans status, intersex status, disability, age or homelessness.
The following list provides real life examples of the types of hate incidents included in the Antisemitism Reports produced by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). Some of these incidents do constitute a crime under Australian federal and state legislation, other incidents don’t.
1. Verbal abuse – For example, a man yelled abuse to an identifiable Jewish person in a train station
2. Gesture – For example, two teenagers made rude gestures towards people outside a Jewish community centre or Synagogue
3. Call, mail, leaflet, social media post – For example, an abusive and threatening email was received by an identifiable Jewish person on their Facebook page
4. Sticker, poster – For example, a threatening poster was placed on the entrance door of a Jewish community centre or Synagogue
5. Graffiti – For example, the house of a Jewish community leader was vandalised with a threatening graffiti and the name of the community leader
6. Property damage – For example, a school for kids of the Jewish community was damaged, including a broken bench and a broken glass window
7. Direct assault with physical contact – For example, a visibly Jewish man was physically assaulted in a train while commuting to work by an unknown man who then run away
8. Indirect assault using object – For example, two people threw vegetables at a person with identifiable Jewish garments, and run away
9. Use of weapon – For example, a woman with Jewish dress was assaulted with a gun on a street by an unknown person
What is hateful extremism?
Hateful extremism is defined by the UK Commission for Countering Extremism as it follows:
| Behaviours that can incite and amplify hate, or engage in persistent hatred, or
equivocate about and make the moral case for violence; And that draw on hateful, hostile or supremacist beliefs directed at an out‑group who are perceived as a threat to the wellbeing, survival or success of an in‑group; And that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to individuals, communities or wider society. |
To know more about hateful extremism and its use in the UK, please read here the full report.
In the next video, Prof Greg Barton discusses the definition of hateful extremism, which some scholars use to substitute the terminology associated with “violent extremism” including PVE (Preventing Violent Extremism) and CVE (Countering Violent Extremism). What does “hateful extremism” exactly mean? Why is it useful?
What is the difference between hate incidents, hate crimes and acts of political violence like terrorism?
The answer to this question is open to debate.
Some would say that, while some hate crimes are politically motivated (for example, violence against racial, political or religious out-groups perpetrated by neo-Nazi militants), other hate crimes might not be motivated by a political ideology, like violence against people living with disabilities or older people.
We instead believe that all forms of violence and aggression towards groups that are visibly different, or that deviate from what some people consider as acceptable, reflect bias and quasi-political beliefs about society’s norms and the place of different groups in society. These quasi-political beliefs are similar in many ways to structured political ideologies. For example, we suggest checking out Nicole Asquith’s video on hate crime against people living with a disability and how it is motivated by an ablest worldview, which resembles a political ideology.
It is important to remember that there are many types and forms of terrorist attacks and hate crimes. For example, victims of disablist crimes are often known to their offenders (and have a pre-existing relationship with them), while victims of racist hate crime are often unknown to their offenders. Also, terrorist attacks inspired by ISIS involve people with current or previous drug consumption and mental health issues more often than attacks organised by groups like al-Qaeda or the Red Brigades.
It is important to remember that there are many types and forms of terrorist attacks and hate crimes. For example, victims of disablist crimes are often known to their offenders (and have a pre-existing relationship with them), while victims of racist hate crime are often unknown to their offenders. Also, terrorist attacks inspired by ISIS involve people with current or previous drug consumption and mental health issues more often than attacks organised by groups like al-Qaeda or the Red Brigades.
In the next table, we summarize and identify the key differences between hate incidents, hate crimes and acts of political violence like terrorism.
| Hate incidents | Hate crimes | Terrorist attacks | |
| Involve violence | Sometimes | Often | Always |
| Target civilian population | Always | Always | Always |
| Have socio-political objectives | Often* | Often* | Always |
| Terrorize a larger group beyond the immediate victims | Often | Often | Always |
| Involve planning and resources | Rarely | Sometimes | Often |
| Victims are unknown to the offenders | Sometimes | Often | Often |
| Involves thrill-seeking, alcohol and drug consumption | Often | Often | Sometimes |
| Get wide publicity and resources for consumption | Rarely | Rarely | Always |
*Includes quasi-political objectives reflected by their personal biases or what they believe to be society’s norms
What definitions of hate crime and hate incidents are used in Australia and beyond?
Some definitions are narrow because they only focus on crimes that are identified by the national legislation. However, we know that many harmful acts, such as different forms of discrimination and verbal abuse, are often not covered by criminal codes. This is the reason why many civil society organizations have decided to focus on “hate incidents” instead of on “hate crime”—to capture conduct that does not constitute a crime but that is nonetheless harmful to victims.
Some other definitions are narrow because they only focus on one community; for example, they only focus on “anti-semitism” or “Islamophobia”. In this project, we look at wider definitions, which include many identities that can be victims of hate.
Please find in this document a list of hate crime definitions used by Australian and international government agencies and civil society organizations. The list is not comprehensive, but it aims to provide a variety of examples that are useful in analysing with a critical eye.
Why do most definitions include a list of “protected characteristics”?
Scholars and practitioners are divided on whether the legitimate victims of hate crime are only those minority groups facing historical and structural disadvantage or whether a member of any community deserves the same legal protection, and on what populations should be included as “vulnerable populations” or “protected groups”.
For this reason, many definitions of hate crime list a number of “protected characteristics”, which specify the identities of those that can be victims of hate.
Examples of these lists are:
1. perceived race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or gender (ADL)
2. race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender (True Vision UK)
3. race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity (FBI)
4. race, ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or any other fundamental characteristic (OSCE)
5. religious affiliation, racial or cultural origin, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, age, impairment (within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995), or homelessness (Victoria Police)
6. race, religion, ethnic/national origin, sex/gender, gender identity, age, disability status, sexual orientation or homeless status (NSW Police)
Often people think about hate crime as a category to protect only groups facing structural and historical disadvantage and discrimination.
Many different groups can be victim of hate and prejudice. This video provides interviews with a number of communities that are victims of hate.
What is hate crime? from Facing Facts on Vimeo.
Often far-right leaders say that white people are victims of racism in white-majority societies, and that hate crime legislation discriminate against them. Is this true? Where do these perceptions originate? Can there be racism against white people in white majority societies? In the next video, Prof Paul Thomas answers a these questions.
Who decides what is hate? Perceptions and bias indicators
There is a general consensus that a distinctive feature of hate crime and hate incidents is the bias motivation. Was the conduct motivated in part or entirely by prejudice or bias? If the answer is yes, we can safely say that it was a hate crime (if criminalised by a criminal code) or a hate incident (if it does not meet the threshold for a crime).
However, there is usually less agreement about how to detect bias motivation behind a person’s conduct. Usually, we use the term “bias indicator” to identify the clues that suggest that a conduct was motivated by bias.
Broadly, there are three approaches to this:
Some organizations decide to accept the subjective perceptions of victims, witnesses or other people because they want to remove barriers to reporting. Often, victims do not report such incidents because of the fear of not being believed. To boost reporting, many organizations accept subjective perceptions as bias indicators. Clearly, if subjective perceptions can be accompanied by other more objective bias indicators, the bias motivation will emerge more strongly, and reporters (both victims and third parties) are always encouraged to note and record bias indicators.
Please find in this pdf document the list of bias indicators developed by Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) in Europe..
Defining terrorism and violent extremism
Defining concepts like terrorism and violent extremism is like opening Pandora’s Box: political and ethical issues are raised by any attempt to define them. These terms are loaded with meaning because they refer not only to forms of political violence but also to a rhetorical device used to condemn political opponents in public discourses, to stigmatize them, to justify any act of repression against them, and to single out minorities in political and public discourses.
The concept of extremism is by definition a relative and ambiguous term, because it identifies a relative position on a continuum of opinions and behaviours. Depending on the context, the line that defines an extremist/radical opinion or behaviour from a moderate/legitimate opinion or behaviour can be drawn at different points in the continuum.
| The Christchurch Call and the definition of terrorism
Think for example about the Christchurch Call to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. The Call was a political summit, initiated by New Zealand PM Jacinta Arden, that tool place in France 2 months after the Christchurch mosque terrorist attack. In that summit, the leaders of seventeen countries (followed by another 24 countries in the same year) and technology companies pledged to remove “terrorist and violent extremist content online”. However, the document does not define “terrorism and violent extremism”, which could be interpreted differently by states. Some civil society voices have raised this problem by warning that the call could result in violations of human rights and free speech. |
As a reference point, here we propose the revised academic consensus definition of terrorism proposed by Alex Schmid, in which terrorism is both a tactic and a doctrine. As a tactic, terrorism involves the indiscriminate use of direct violent action against non-combatants and civilians. As a doctrine, terrorism involves the strategic belief that it will be possible to obtain legitimate political goals by coercing political actors, which can be the voters or the government of a country, through the use of fear. Terrorism is therefore not defined by the specific political aims or ideological goals of the action: there are terrorists that refer to a variety of religious and atheist ideologies.
| The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism
Terrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral constraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties. |
We also propose the definition of extremism discussed by Peter Neumann, which can describe both political ideas and methods by which actors seek to realize any political mean. In this sense, violent extremism captures violent forms of extremism, which includes violent ideologues and violent methods to achieve political aims.
| Definition of extremism
It may describe political ideas that are diametrically opposed to a society’s core values, which—in the context of a liberal democracy—can be various forms of racial or religious supremacy, or ideologies that deny basic human rights or democratic principles. Or it can mean the methods by which actors seek to realize any political aim, namely by showing disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others. |
In this document we compiled some of the definitions of violent extremism adopted by government agencies of countries around the globe. For further readings, we recommend this resource on the website of UNODC, titled “Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism”.