Search Results

This chapter examines ‘race hate crime’ policy as an expression of the decline of the emancipatory dynamic of the anti-racism of the 1960s and 1970s. The author makes the case for treating hate crimes as an example of authoritarian multicultural anti-racism that is concerned with social control, rather than human emancipation. The chapter highlights ways in which hate crime policy treats racialised minorities as victims who need state protection. The author argues that hate crime policy is part of the broader erosion of civil liberties that has seen the rise of the prison population in the USA and the creation of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and other forms of preventative policing in the UK.

Given the centrality of the victim to the conceptualisation of ‘hate crime’, this chapter explores the significance of including the victim in the ‘hate crime’ policy process. It analyses findings from research carried out on the London-wide Race Hate Crime Forum in 2006 and 2007 to illuminate and evaluate efforts to include victims of racist crime in multi-agency working at the London-wide level. The chapter draws out the tensions involved in confronting criminal justice agents with the experiences of victims and also the problem of competing claims by different groups of victims for inclusion in the policy process. First, it discusses ‘race-hate’ crime and multi-agency working in the European Union, and then considers multi-agency working and victims of ‘race-hate crime’ in the United Kingdom, ‘race-hate crime’ and multi-agency cooperation city-wide in London, the ‘silo-approach’ to ‘hate crime’, and lessons from the London-wide Race Hate Crime Forum.

The issue of racism and sectarianism is increasingly understood through the prism of ‘hate crime’. This way of conceptualising racism and sectarianism is usually accompanied by the claim that society should be intolerant towards intolerance. This chapter argues that this involves a particular interpretation of tolerance and intolerance – one which deviates significantly from the traditional liberal conception of toleration. The chapter outlines public attitudes towards additional penalties for racial aggravation in race hate crimes. It then explores the rationales for these views by the public and points out that the main principle which is articulated by the majority of those who oppose hate crime laws, and a significant proportion who support the law, is one of equality in the eyes of the law. The chapter then judges hate crime laws against John Stuart Mill's defence of tolerance, argue that they are antithetical to Mill's defence of tolerance. It concludes by arguing, firstly, that hate crime laws undermine the principle of equality – which has been, and continues to be, fundamental to anti-racism. And secondly, that they undermine tolerance, which is fundamental to personal liberty.

The recognition that people can be persecuted on the basis of an actual or perceived identity has underpinned the enactment and expansion of UK ‘hate crime’ laws. The ‘hate debate’ has questioned the efficacy of such laws to prevent crime or protect minority groups, as well as whether they create a hierarchy of victimisation which in turn may fuel further hostility towards identifiable ‘others’. This chapter focuses on a more nuanced aspect of the debate: the impact that socially constructed and denigrated identities may have on availing of legal redress. Using a case study approach, the chapter assesses how evidence relating to the treatment of gypsies and travellers and street-sleeping homeless people indicates that there is scope for a broader consideration of ‘vulnerability’ over currently demarcated identity characteristics. However, without a substantial shift in social attitudes (towards these two groups in particular), enhancing legal remedies to harm may be redundant.

This chapter covers Trump's domestic approach towards counterterrorism. It shows that Trump's attitude towards right-wing extremism is one of the most disturbing aspects of his War on Terror. Although substantive changes to domestic counterterrorism laws and policies have been relatively minor, Trump has radically transformed the political environment in which homegrown radicalization and terrorism have played out. Contrary to previous administrations, Trump has actively promoted far-right narratives, making it clear that he considers the enemy to be "radical Islam" rather than terrorism per se. In doing so, the chapter argued that he has empowered the extreme Right and "enabled" a rising number of hate crimes and terrorist attacks, while undermining the trust of Muslim communities. He has deepened divisions, further polarization, and created the fertile ground in which domestic terrorism has been able to thrive.

This chapter explores how researchers interact with their research/the researched (who may hold very different values to researcher) whilst maintaining personal values and addressing ethical issues. Drawing on the three authors’ experiences in the areas of hate crime, sexual violence and extremist ideologies, the chapter considers the preparation, process and perspectives inherent in what could be viewed as ’difficult’ research terrains. Several areas are addressed, such as establishing the research relationship; establishing credibility with participants who hold different or conflicting views to the researcher; managing research dynamics; issues of analysis and interpretation; and challenges in giving voice (in publications) to ‘difficult’ or unconventional attitudes and experiences.