The Advisory Group has been busy during its relatively short lifespan. Meetings and focus groups have enabled the Advisory Group to gain a direct understanding of the human cost of prejudice and hatecrime in Scotland and its profound impact on personal lives and social cohesion. We were both moved and humbled to listen to many of these stories of trauma and resilience. The meetings underlined that facing prejudice and fear remains part of the everyday life of too many people in Scotland, escalating into direct personal violence and threat. We heard of people routinely abused on the street or on public transport, of people isolated in their own homes because they feared to go out and of verbal and physical abuse ranging from insults and catcalling on a daily basis to being spat on, or molested. We heard stories of bullying at school and in the workplace and of people frightened by the changing news agenda which seemed to blame everyone of one religious group or another. We heard of young people feeling isolated as the only member of a minority in small communities.
The first challenge is to identify how the Think Project can continue to operate as a distinct arm of its parent organisation eYsT beyond its current BlF funding. in a continuing situation of tight public spending restrictions, this is obviously a challenge, but policy priorities in both the Welsh and UK Government environments provide positive opportunities for the Think Project to present a strong business case. here, the new welsh government hatecrime strategy (subject to consultation) and the welsh approach (both regionally and nationally) to Prevent may create a framework in which growing Far right risks can be related and in which a strong case can be made for the Think Project continuing and being seen as a key part of the welsh national policy response. Part of the case to be made here is about the risk to these regional and national policy efforts of the Think Project disappearing after its strong contribution: it was acknowledged that ‘if the Think Project stopped tomorrow, there would be a huge gap’ for both Prevent and Communitycohesion strategies in the Swansea area: ’EYST and Think are an integral part of the solution’ (la Prevent officer).
and of local environments, and the situations and opportunities that facilitate victimization and offending. A considerable amount of research and evaluation has created the fundament for development of various approaches of crime prevention. Classifying crime prevention activities into primary, secondary, and tertiary B. Welsh and D. Farrington  determine that primary prevention involves measures focused on improving the general well-being of individuals, secondary prevention focuses on intervening with children and youth who are at risk for becoming offenders or victims, and tertiary prevention involves measures directed toward those who have already been involved with crime or victimization. In turn, according to the crime prevention guidelines  the major fields of crime prevention include developmental, environmental, situational, social and community-based crime prevention. Crime prevention through social development includes a range of social, educational, health and training programmes. Recently most developmental prevention efforts have targeted early risk factors for offending. It is worth noting that risk-focused prevention was imported into criminology from medicine and public health. The basic idea of risk-focused prevention is very simple: to identify the key risk factors for offending and to implement prevention methods designed to counteract them. Communitycrime prevention includes areas with high levels of deprivation, both in terms of infrastructure, services and wealth, or lack of communitycohesion. This includes slums and informal settlements, or inner-city or suburban housing projects, often areas with a concentration of economic and social problems. Communitycrime prevention often involves the active participation of local residents and organizations in those communities and neighbourhoods. They may be involved in identifying local priorities as well as implementing responses. The term “community” can refer to small neighbourhoods
The Commission’s report on Prejudice and Unlawful (Abrams, Swift and Mahmood, 2016) concludes that ‘little research has attempted to explore the empirical link between prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviours’ (p. 133). Our review of the literature concurs with this finding in relation to hatecrime. If we are to move towards a more effective strategy for preventing hatecrime, a number of gaps in research must be filled. For each recommendation, it is important to emphasise that the build-up of knowledge is only possible where criminal justice agencies provide a robust evidence base for hatecrime, ideally working in partnership with academics and other practitioners in this field. Involving key civil society organisations and developing ongoing relationships between agencies and research institutions will therefore be key to realising our recommendations.
Partnership (PiP) pack project (www.pippack. org/default.asp.) which consists of a series of planned training sessions for people with a learning disability. These include describing to participants what hatecrime is, giving them the opportunity to practise reporting hatecrime using special telephones that the police service have invested in, allowing them to visit the control room where calls are received, and allowing them to meet with police officers involved in tackling hatecrime. These training sessions are seen to fulfil two aims: ‘giving people with a learning disability the confidence [to report hatecrime] and providing training to officers about how to talk to people with a learning disability’. Another police service described a project that it had delivered in conjunction with local partners (eg a local authority, a learning disability organisation) that gave people with a learning disability the opportunity to meet with their local PCSOs and visit their local police station. This was felt to be a ‘simple, low-cost and effective way to keep people safe.’ The project was successful not only in raising awareness among people with a learning disability about their rights and about the role of the police in tackling hatecrime, but also as an effective means of consultation with this group. This resulted in key learning for the police about how to improve the services they provide.
Sometimes people with a learning disability are not given enough support in court. This can mean they have trouble explaining what has happened to them. This is important because what they say could make sure someone who is guilty of a hatecrime is punished.
Reports can also be made direct to another agency or Third Party Reporting Centre such as the Police or Local Authority. A Third Party Reporting Centre is a place where staff have been trained to take reports of Hate Incidents and or HateCrime, a centre could be your local Library, Victim Support Centre, Citizen‟s Advice Bureau etc. A full list of Third Party Reporting centres for each area can be found by contacting your Local Authority or visiting their website. We would advise victims/witnesses to contact us as soon as possible, to enable us to respond quickly.
The good news is that while clearly we are different – indeed, no two individuals are the same, we all belong to the same species, there is only one human race, there is no such thing as a perfect body and variation in sexual preference is completely natural and normal. In other words the ideologies of hate are/have been proven to be completely false. Hence, the primary challenge of anti- hate education must be to hammer home this fact. There are an abundance of anti-hate training resources on the web to work with different groups and ages. Below are a summary of some resources offered by public and charitable organisations that can be freely accessed: A
2009/2010 77 per cent (27 per cent of LSOA areas had no incidents), and 2011/12 100 per cent of HateCrime incidents occurred at 70 per cent of all LSOA areas (30 per cent had no incidents). This shows that the concentration of Hate Crimes in these top 20 LSOA areas has been reducing over time. This finding is in line with a recent report on racial violence by the Institute of Race Relations (Racial violence; facing reality 2013) which found that racial attacks on BME individuals were spreading to new areas of the country which have little experience of diversity, in part as a result of austerity measures and the effects of globalisation prompting swifter population changes. However, it is beyond the remit of this project to authoritatively answer this question within Suffolk. It should also be noted that this dispersal of HateCrime may also reflect improved levels of reporting in some less urban LSOA areas, itself reflecting the activities of local agencies.
If a disability hatecrime or a disability hate incident happens where you live you should tell your local council. They may work with the police to sort it out or they may be able to deal with the person or people who are carrying out the disability hate crimes to stop it from happening again.
Model 2 explores the potential barriers that may influence the reporting of crime to police and displays similar results to Model 1: the variables age , hatecrime and property crime are significantly associated with reporting behaviour. The results show that a one unit increase in age and experiencing a property crime incident is associated with an estimated 0.4% (OR: 1.004; p- value: 0.004) and 13.8% (OR: 1.138; p-value: 0.018) increase, respectively, in the odds of reporting crime to police. Experiencing a hatecrime incident is again associated with an estimated 15.5% (1 - 0.845) decrease in the odds of reporting crime to police (OR: 0.845; p-value: 0.021). Although prior research indicates that minority group status influences the decision to report crimes to the police, the potential barrier variables are not significantly associated with reporting or not reporting crime incidents to police. This result may indicate that the potential barrier variables are less likely to impact on the reporting behaviour of victims or could suggest that the NSPS sample of PMC victims does not fit the typical hatecrime victim often featured in the hatecrime literature. Our sample suggests that PMC victims were primarily native-born, English speaking Australians and therefore may not experience the same potential barriers that exist in other international contexts. 7 PMC victims in the NSPS self-reported that they (or anyone
Section 46 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 allows an application to be made, including by the CPS, for restrictions on the reporting of certain details of witnesses in the media that may lead to their identification. A section 46 direction can cover revealing the sexual orientation of the witness and can therefore provide a very important protection for people who are concerned about being outed in the media because they give evidence in a case involving a homophobic crime.
It also suggests that trans women are marginally more likely to experience hatecrime than trans men – which may be due to the fact that many trans women are more visible as trans than trans men may be. Indeed, through the examination of the case studies in the UK, this report has found that the police service and the Crown Prosecution Service position trans women as ‘men by proxy’ as detailed above. This obscures the specificity of trans women and diverts the due regard to their vulnerability for justice to be done. More in-depth research is needed to examine the specificities of transphobic hatecrime experienced by trans men – as well as the different contexts in which trans people experience hatecrime. It is only relatively recently that the murder of trans people has been documented by members of the trans community and voluntary organisations. 16 The frequency of these
There may be a fear of reprisals or things getting worse if it is reported and the intervention is inappropriate. A key issue to consider is the need for confidentiality. A victim or witness of homophobic hatecrime may or may not be from the LGBT community. Others will be ‘out’ to their trusted associates but may not be to family, wider friends or even colleagues. In either case homophobic hatecrime is unacceptable. Due consideration needs to be given as to whether this is even important to establish whether or not he victim or witness is LGBT. Care should always be taken that victims and witnesses are not inadvertently ‘outed’ or labelled by insensitive handling. Access to case data should be carefully thought through so it is not misappropriated or misused.
Whilst racial bias comprises the most frequent motivation for HateCrime in Suffolk, it is only a proportion of HateCrime. The emerging picture from several other equality strands demonstrated some disturbing trends. As we have rehearsed in our earlier discussion, there is some evidence that inaccurate recording by some police officers of flagged hate offences for sexuality and also disability at least partially explains some of the sharp increases here. The question that cannot be answered is the extent to which these data quality issues account for the entire fluctuations in the data. Suffolk police are aware of these recording problems, but they are difficult to address retrospectively. Their own upgrading of IT systems presents an opportunity to introduce tighter auditing procedures for such flagged offences, and improved staff training in accurate data inputting. Whilst these developments are important for strategy planning within Suffolk, the more
Biased violence directed toward select social characteristics or status, moti- vated by racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and other biases has been docu- mented throughout history: from the Old Testament description of the geno- cides of Amalekites and Midianites to more recent ethnic and religious-based violence in Bosnia and Sudan. The history of the United States includes bias- motivated violence against Native Americans, African Americans, and others. The movement for categorizing certain violent activity directed at individuals based on their ethnic or social characteristics as “hate crimes" in the United States, however, is a recent phenomena. According to Jenness and Ryken, in their book Making Hate a Crime: From Social Movement to Law Enforce- ment, an "anti-hatecrime movement" was "energized by several previous social movements" and "emerged in the late 1970s to bring public attention to vio- lence directed at certain minorities" [Jenness and Ryken, 2001. p.17]. Jenness and Ryken suggest that the movement to make biased violence a unique type of crime was born out of the combination of the modern civil rights movement and the crime victim movement.
Indeed, gender and sexuality ideologies (norms, values, and logics) are ways of structuring society and governing everyday social interactions and actions. These ideologies and logics are contextually, historically, cultur- ally, and socio-politically framed; not products of our natural environment. As Lugones (2007) outlines “gender itself is a colonial concept and mode of organization of relations of production, property relations, of cosmologies and ways of knowing” (p. 186). How we organise sexuality into straight or LGB, and gender into man/women is rooted in a historical baggage of colo- nial systems. Hate scholarship has maintained its critiques of heterosexism, heteronormativity, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. However, it has remained silent on the mechanisms which underpin all of these issues and which base our individual positionalities as gendered or sexual beings within the world. Thus, the LGBT acronym is based on a heterosexist, colo- nial system that routinely frames sexuality and gender as binary. The bina- ries of man/woman, gay/straight are often the only choices available to people (Cashore & Tuason, 2009). Hatecrime approaches to gender and sexuality would benefit by acknowledging identity beyond this binary. It is for this reason that I now turn to examine the Western assumptions of gen- der and sexuality.
Gemma was a vulnerable adult who was known to a number of agencies throughout her life. Warwickshire Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board (WSAPB) commissioned a Serious Case Review to examine in detail the way that services worked with Gemma. The review also looked to establish whether Gemma was targeted for abuse or exploitation as a direct result of her disability and if so, to determine the lessons that can be learnt to identify early warning signs of possible hatecrime.
• If it is an incident that does not fit any of the hatecrime criteria, but is hate related submit a NON CRIME REPORT (If you are unsure of what offence has been committed submit a non crime report – It can always be changed to a crime at a later date)
An analytic review of the professional literature to determine the prevalence of hate crimes against LGBT individuals was conducted. The review is structured as an exploratory design with the purpose of acquiring a knowledge base from the professional literature to educate social workers, social service agencies, and policy makers to facilitate change for the protection of the LGBT community. Researchers theorize that factors such as the lack of adherence to traditional gender roles increase the risk of discrimination and victimization (Gordon & Meyer, 2007). It has been implied additionally that LGBT individuals are at a heightened risk for the development of mental health disorders (such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when they are targeted for discrimination and violence as a result of their sexual preference. The research also implies that health brings a new vision of how Americans can work together to prevent violence. This new vision places emphasis on preventing violence before it occurs, making science integral to identifying effective policies and programs, and integrating the efforts of diverse scientific disciplines, organizations, and communities. A sustained effort at all levels of society will be required to successfully address this complex and deeply rooted problem and to implement state-level policies to protect the LGBT community and thus decrease the occurrence of psychiatric, mental health disorders amongst this population.