Hate,
Hate Groups and Hate Crimes:
Fighting
Xenophobia in the European Union
Joseph Kibitlewski
Professor and Chair
Department of Criminal Justice
Kelly B. Shaw
Associate Director
European Union Center
Prepared for the bi-annual
meeting of the European Community Studies Association, 31 May - 2 June,
2001. Hilton Monona Terrace Hotel, Madison, Wisconsin.
-
Introduction
-
Hate and its Motivations
-
Intergovernmental Cooperation in the EU
-
Project Athena
-
Germany and Youth Education
-
Is
There a Solution to Hate in the European Union?
Hate, Hate
Groups, and Hate Crimes:
Fighting
Xenophobia in the European Union
‡
The problem of "hate
related" activity, criminal and otherwise, is of great concern to the
European Union (EU) and its member-states. In recent years, Europeans
have seen a dramatic increase in the frequency of hate crimes across the
EU, and a seemingly wider acceptance - or at least tolerance - of these
groups and political parties that profess a hate agenda. In 1999,
murder and attempted murder on racial, ethnic, religious or cultural
groups were reported in the national mass media in Austria, France,
Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Additionally, there
was an increase in the number of recorded racial crimes associated with
neo-Nazi groups in Germany and Sweden. The swift reaction of the European Union toward
Austria following the formation of a coalition government with Jörg
Haider's right-wing Freedom Party was a clear reaction to the rising
concerns that exist over racism and xenophobia in the EU.
This paper investigates the rising occurrences, sources, and potential
solutions to hate crimes and hate activities as they relate to the
European Union. It begins with an examination of the problem, identifying
the sources of hate crimes in the EU by focusing on variables such as
ethnicity, religion, and race. Once the reader is familiar with the
causes and motivations of hate, and the concomitant social aspects and
stigmas that accompany hate, we move on to examine intergovernmental
cooperation between EU institutions on the one-hand, and nation-state law
enforcement agencies on the other. Here, case-studies from the United
Kingdom and Germany are utilized to analyze "best practices" that have
arisen from this member-state - EU interaction. This case-study portion
is based largely upon interviews conducted in Europe during the summer of
2000. This paper concludes by suggesting a new - and potentially
controversial - direction that the EU and its member-states might take in
order to reduce the number of hate crimes that occur in the European
Union.
I. Hate and its Motivations
To place things in their proper perspective, let us look at "hate"
itself. I cannot hand you a kilo of it. I cannot paint it or smell it,
but it resides within us all. We all know what it is, and in
conversation, we know what is expected of us: to join in the mindset that
to hate is wrong, not to be desired. Yet, what does one do when one does,
in fact, hate? How can one express it? One may express other emotions,
for the most part, but hate must be outwardly suppressed. Is it any
wonder then, that resentment builds up within those who do hate and yet,
in all other ways are law abiding?
The concept of "Hate, Hate Groups and Hate Crimes" is not uni-dimensional.
As it relates to this research, it has been kept at paramount concern that
economic, political and religious forces all use the word, conceptualizing
as they do, differing in its interpretations of meaning along the way.
What is "hate" to a religious fanatic, and how his targets are determined
differs from a person who is a fanatic concerned about racial purity.
Consequently, when a solution is sought, all these factors must be taken
into account with the realization that, at best, there will have to be a
compromise of positions for all the various factions to be satisfied. It
is inconceivable to think any entity would be fully satisfied with any
projected plan of action. However, the research will provide a possible,
viable answer.
Central to the problem within the European Union is the realization that
many of the events and solutions attempted in the United States to address
hate crimes will not help Europe. In the U.S., minorities complain of
past events, and the dialogue between the races is largely driven by
minority concerns. Civil rights spokespersons are usually minorities, and
there are no majority figures to answer the complaints of minorities. As
a result, minorities typically are in a position to control the dialogue -
even to control the area of contention. The issue of race is uppermost.
In Europe, we find that hate crimes are most frequently carried out
against particular races because of reasons that encompass points of
culture, economics, and religion. Unlike in the United States, race is
largely subordinated to these other concerns, but serves as an identifying
characteristic of the pressing concerns that provoke persons to
participate in hate crime. A recent Eurobarometer (Eurobarometer 53)
study indicates that immigrants are largely perceived by EU citizens to be
responsible for many of the social ills in the EU. For instance, among
the 15 EU nations, 52% of the respondents fears a decline in educational
standards if the percentage of children from minority groups in a school
is too high. The same percentage across the EU15 supports the statement
that people from minority groups abuse the social welfare system.
Additionally, more than half of the respondents to Eurobarometer questions
agree that the presence of people from minority groups increases
unemployment in their country (51%) and that immigrants are more often
involved in criminal activities than the average citizen (58%). Thus, on
average in the EU, concerns regarding unemployment, crime, insecurity, and
a stressed educational system are all viewed - correctly or incorrectly -
to be directly related to the presence of religious, cultural, ethnic and
racial minorities within the nation-state's borders.
We argue throughout this paper that holding minorities responsible for
negative developments within the "home country" can, in turn, cause
particular minority groups to become targets of hate crimes.
Although there is no direct evidence to support this claim, there is
plenty of related evidence to suggest that negative perceptions toward
immigrants can lead to discrimination against them. In time, these perceptions often lead to hate crimes being
committed against particular minority groups. Violence toward immigrants
who were perceived by Skinhead groups to be causing unemployment in many
East German länder grab headlines, but violence against other refugees and
immigrants from African, Asian and Arabic countries is also common.
The actual number of hate crimes committed in the EU is not known due to
under-reporting by victims and under-recording by law authorities.
However, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
concluded in their 1999 Annual Report "that there are ethnic, religious
and cultural minorities, immigrants and refugees in all the Member States
who are vulnerable to racist crimes and discrimination". In Germany alone, the EUMC,
along with the German government, recorded 10,037 criminal offenses with
racist or xenophobic motives, with a total of 746 of these offenses
considered acts of violence with racist or xenophobic motives. The
same report notes that racist attacks against immigrants also increased
from 1998 to 1999 in Spain, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Austria,
Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In none of the EU15 was it reported that the
number of racist or xenophobic crimes declined in this same period.
The shocking numbers
compiled on individual member-states by the EUMC is supported by other
data compiled in two separate Eurobarometer surveys. Eurobarometer 47
(1997) found that nearly 80% of sampled EU citizens held the view that it
is a good thing for any society to be made up of people from different
races, religions and cultures. Nevertheless, it remains clear that racism
continues to be a serious problem in the EU. For instance, when
respondents were asked in a Eurobarometer (51) survey to place themselves
on a scale of 1 to 10, ranging from 'not at all racist' to 'very racist',
9% classified themselves as 'very racist' (scores 7-10). A further 24%
fell in the 'quite racist' category (scores 4-6). This frightening
self-assessment is supported by people's attitudes towards foreigners or
other minority groups. The same Eurobarometer survey found that 41% of
the respondents are of the opinion that there are too many people from
minority groups in terms of race, religion and culture living in their
country. Thus, a "not-in-my-backyard" dichotomy seems to be established
in the EU - with support for diversity on the one hand, and complaints of
too many minority groups on the other.
Racism and xenophobia, then, are serious concerns for the EU. And, while
84% of persons surveyed in the EU15 agree that the EU should take a
stronger role in the fight against racism, knowing exactly which course to
take has been problematic for the EU. In matters of major concern to the
European Union is the discovery of an effective, but not restrictive, way
to combat the rising tide of racism. For the European Court of Justice to
rule for the suppression of political dissent engenders concerns with
regard to those past political regimes, which started out with minor
suppression and progressed to total political dissent restriction. Just
as the free market of commerce can succeed because it is a free market, so
the free market of ideas must also be allowed to succeed or fall on its
own merits.
II. Intergovernmental Cooperation in the EU
The alarming rise of hate crimes directed toward immigrants, Jews, and
other racial, ethnic and cultural groups in the EU in the past five years
has been handled aggressively by the EU and its institutions. Through the
creation of new institutions, legislation, and education and training, the
EU has worked with member-states, public authorities and private bodies to
take positive action to combat hate crimes and/or apply sanctions against
perpetrators of racist acts. Most of these measures, taken by the EU
itself or taken through coordinated action with other actors, have been
based upon constitutional and legal protection. However, "good practice"
measures must move beyond the legal and constitutional measures to
incorporate education and awareness raising, information and communication
campaigns, and the development of policy and practice throughout the EU.
In 1997, the European Council established the European Monitoring Centre
on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to "study the extent and development of
the phenomena and manifestations of racism, Xenophobia and anti-Semitism"
throughout the EU. Since its opening in Vienna in 2000, the EUMC has
focused largely on the causes, consequences and effects of xenophobia on
societies in the EU, and on examples of good practice in EU
member-states. While data collection and research into xenophobia and its
causes serves a vital function, there is hope that the EUMC will
eventually serve more than its current role as a broker of information.
Shortly after opening its doors in 2000, the EUMC commissioned a study on
the legislative measures currently available in EU member-states to combat
racism and xenophobia. The study found that some countries were endowed
with extensive and comprehensive legal machinery to address hate crimes,
while others treat the topic with "superficial" legislation. This
conclusion prompted the EUMC to recommend the introduction of
European-wide legislation designed to combat hate crimes. In addition,
the EUMC suggested that minorities and other targets of hate crimes should
be given greater access to the courts and that those found guilty of hate
related activities be sentenced to longer terms of incarceration.
Many of the EUMC's recommendations were met by the ratification of the
Treaty of Amsterdam, which went into effect on 1 May, 1999. Specifically,
Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states that:
Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the
limits of the Powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council,
acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting
the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation.
Article 13, thus provides a legal basis for combating racism and
xenophobia at the European level while providing its member-states with a
minimum framework for legislation and set guidelines to combat similar
problems within their own borders.
Article 13 concerns both the citizens of the EU as well as those from non-EU
member-states subjected to hate crimes and discrimination based on sex,
racial and ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation. At the heart of Article 13 rests two Directives from the
European Commission to the Council of Ministers. The first directive,
titled the Race Directive, is based on the principle of equal treatment
between people, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and provides
blanket coverage of persons in terms of access to employment
opportunities, access to education, access to goods and services, and the
like. The second directive, titled the Employment Directive, focuses more
directly on equal treatment in employment and occupation. It should be
noted that both directives require the respondent (the person suspected of
discrimination) to prove that he or she has not breached the principle of
equal treatment endorsed in the two directives.
Although legislation to combat racism and xenophobia forms the bedrock
upon which policy and action can be developed, anti-hate legislation is
supported by the EU through vast educational, training, informational and
communication campaigns designed to raise the awareness of the public to
issues surrounding racism and xenophobia. To raise awareness, the
European Commission designated 1997 as the European Year Against Racism,
and has encouraged quantitative studies by the EUMC to show the EU-wide
problems with racism. Firm in the belief that people with more
education display less negative attitudes towards minorities than those
with less education, the Commission has developed a number of educational
programs to be utilized in the classroom to teach children to value
diversity. Believing that racism is learned rather than instinctive, the
goal of the Commission's activities has been to include anti-racist views
into teaching curriculum and the general learning process.
In addition to education, the European Commission and the EUMC has
increasingly targeted the media in the EU15, arguing that the role of the
media in combating racism and xenophobia, whether through informational or
educational campaigns, is crucial. Like most western media, the European
media frequently rejects any code of practice governing their informative
role. However, the media was receptive of a conference hosted by the EUMC
in May 1999 entitled "Cultural Diversity Against Racism." At the
conference, the EUMC put forward recommendations and suggestions to the
media to report and represent ethnic minorities in their stories,
encouraging the media to take an active role in combating racism.
According to EUMC, the perceived need for the media to provide spectacular
news should not cancel out the educational role that the media could play
in fighting racism.
Another difficult task facing the EU in its fight against racism is the
education of law enforcement officials. As noted earlier, evidence
suggests that many hate crimes that are reported to law enforcement
agencies go unreported, thus underestimating the true level of hate in
Europe. More troubling, however, is that law enforcement agencies and
their officers are frequently responsible for carrying out the hate crime
itself. The EU feels that training programs for officers and public
prosecutors will help curb hate-crimes carried out by law enforcement
authorities and underreporting. In 1999 alone, police training programs
were established in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden and the
United Kingdom. Project Athena, discussed in greater detail below, is one
such program designed to teach racial tolerance to law enforcement
officials.
Institutionally, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU have
also taken steps to fight xenophobia and related hate crimes in the EU.
For example, the European Parliament produced the report "Countering
Racism and Xenophobia in the European Union", which looks at the
implementation of the European Year Against Racism and past work of the
European Commission and EU institutional activity on racism and
xenophobia. The Council, under the direction of the Finnish presidency,
produced its first Annual Report on Human Rights in October 1999, which
included sections addressing the fight against racism and hate crimes and
respect for minorities. Other reports focused on encouraging law
enforcement agencies to work more closely with the EU when combating
racism and xenophobia. With one such cooperation coming in the form of
the Project Athena initiative developed by the Metropolitan Police
(London).
Project Athena
The Racial and Violent Crime Task force was set up by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS is often referred to as Scotland Yard) in London in
August 1998 to deliver new ideas on how to police London's diverse
communities. Codenamed Project Athena for the Greek goddess of wisdom and
the city, Project Athena sees the diversity of London as a strength, and
has used this diversity to change the way that London is policed.
At the center of Project Athena is teaching tolerance and cooperation to
diverse ethnic groups as well as the constables who are on the frontline
of the MPS's fight against hate crime. The MPS began by providing
sensitivity training at every level of their organization, from recruits
to chief police officers. This sensitivity training includes video
simulation, role-playing courses, and the input of people from diverse
communities throughout London. The MPS places an emphasis on hiring
new officers from the diverse groups in London, partnering non-minority
officers with these new minority officers and rotating officers from
different beats that include the diverse neighborhoods in the city.
In the belief that the MPS was a microcosm of the City of London, the
Athena Project has sought to change the prejudiced culture that it felt
existed within the MPS.
The MPS uses a holistic crime strategy to combat hate crimes in London.
For example, the MPS uses technologies to find patterns in hate mail and
internet exchanges, and utilize DNA samples to track hate crime
offenders. Like the EU, the MPS has utilized policy-making to create
stiffer penalties for persons who are found guilty of hate crimes.
For example, if the MPS can prove that a crime was motivated by prejudice,
the Crime and Disorder Act adds two years to the prison sentence of anyone
convicted of grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, common assault,
fear or provocation of violence, intentional harassment or alarm or
distress. The Crime and Disorder Act adds four years to racially or
sexually motivated criminal damage, and creates fines and orders to
restrict anti-social behavior in young children.
The MPS has also worked to get at the issue of underreporting resolved.
Diversity training among the officers has increased the reporting of
racist incidents, but there remains a mentality in the MPS that hate crime
is like an iceberg - 90% of it goes unreported. Because the victim does
not feel comfortable reporting the crime to a person who is not of their
race or culture, the crime goes unreported, thus the perpetrator is
empowered. By establishing a group of 44 non-police advisers representing
a vast array of minority groups in London, victims now have a third party
to whom they can report hate crimes. Located in housing associations and
churches, these advisers are typically high profile members of the
minority community who, in turn, report the hate crime to the MPS and act
as voices for their communities.
In addition to sensitivity training and the establishment of community
policing and non-police advisers, the MPS has brought diverse groups
together to discuss stereotypes and concerns that exist between diverse
communities. In London, as is much of Europe, hate crimes are often
directed against one minority group by another. By bringing groups
together, the MPS has been able to reduce tensions between diverse ethnic
groups, and thus reduce the occurrence of hate crimes in London. The
issue of trust is paramount in these cross-communal discussions.
The initiatives put forward by the MPS and Project Athena have earned
recognition from the EUMC as a best practice. Project Athena has
focused on education in its efforts to reduce the occurrence of hate
crimes in London's future, but the immediate results of the project has
also been encouraging. From its initiation in August 1998 to
December 1999, reporting of racist incidents was up 131 percent;
intelligence reporting from community groups regarding potential hate
group activity was up 577 percent; while the number of racially motivated
crime cases that were closed went up 160 percent. Perhaps most importantly, the number of arrested
for hate crime activities during this 17-month period increased 166
percent. Community policing while encouraging cross-community tolerance
and cooperation has made the environment in London more hostile towards
hate crime.
Germany and Youth Education
Perhaps no country in the EU is more sensitive to the occurrence of hate
crimes than Germany. Given Germany's historical experiences under Nazi
Germany in the 1930s and 40s, its large immigrant population, and problems
of unification with the five formerly East German länder, Germany garners
much attention whenever hate crimes are discussed in the EU. In 1999,
Germany surpassed all other EU countries in the number of criminal
offenses and violent acts classified as hate crimes. No other country devotes more resources to
the recording of hate crimes, and no other country devotes more resources
to these crimes.
Germany's most aggressive campaign to stop racism and xenophobia is aimed
at educating young people to celebrate Germany's diversity. The Federal
Government's "Child and Youth Plan" promotes diversity and intercultural
education throughout the German educational system, but a number of
programs have targeted popular culture in Germany, believed to be where
much of the resentment toward minorities is cultivated. According to the
EUMC, Germany has targeted popular culture through:
The "Coordination department of fan projects": there are projects aiming
to counteract the occurrence of violence by young people in connection
with football games; the "Centre of action, information and documentation
against xenophobia" (IDA) of the youth federations and German youth
initiatives offers federal youth work against racism and xenophobia; "Rock
for the right": is a media educational service about development in the
music scene. The Film project "CUTOVER" is a media educational project
for Youth Clubs and schools. There also exists selected projects for
cultural youth education like "Rap for courage", videos against prejudice
and violence (e.g. "violence is speechless").
Another educational program emphasizing tolerance in Germany has been the
work done with German and international youth groups. Activities
carried out within these groups include supporting solidarity projects in
integration work, the organization of travel to memorial sites and former
concentration camps, and the publication of magazines that address
diversity issues. Examples of these informational magazines include
"Understanding Foreigners", and Understanding "Islam", "Buddhism", and
Judaism". In addition to its own initiatives, the German
government and its various länder have worked closely with NGOs such as
the Anti-Defamation League and Amnesty International.
Is There a Solution to Hate in the European
Union?
Throughout this paper we have seen some common themes occur. Hatred and
xenophobia is frequently deeply rooted into the society in which hate
crimes occur. Oftentimes in Europe, more than one group has a historical
claim on property and/or political rights, and when these historical
claims collide, hate crimes and other, perhaps more vicious, crimes
against humanity occur. As evidenced by the reaction of Estonians toward
ethnic Russians, or East Germans against Turkish immigrants, hatred and
violence toward other groups is too frequently a natural phenomena in
Europe.
The EU has approached the problems of hate crimes through aggressive
educational campaigns, believing that hate is a learned. We agree with
this argument, for if groups who have historically fought one another are
expected now to get along, education will be a key to this process. We
also agree that it is appropriate for the EU and its nation-states to have
turned toward the media to encourage tolerance and to teach diversity. In
the EU15, and in those countries that hope to join the EU, a free and open
media is vital to democracy, but is not without its obligations to
society. Finally, we agree that anti-hate legislation provides the
foundation upon which policy and action can be developed. Thus far, the
institutions of the EU have been hesitant to legislate in this area, but
we are hopeful that Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam will serve as
the stimulus for Community-wide legislation in this area.
The European Union has aggressively fought racism and xenophobia through a
combination of legislation, institutional frameworks and the mobilization
of the broader public, but serious problems still exist. Member-state and
EU tactics have increased the number of persons convicted of hate
activity, but the troubling fact remains that the level of hate activity
has continued to grow. The past has shown that ethnic minorities often
serve as the scapegoat when the economy suffers, but the improving
economic situation in many countries as the EU enters a period of
financial and economic prosperity has not been enough to eradicate
xenophobia. The problem, it would seem, is that, despite numerous
examples of effective best practices in the member-states, there appears
to be lacking a strong political will to give coherence to these efforts.
This must remain one of the priority tasks of the institutions of the
European Union.
Beyond the role of the EU, however, we argue - perhaps controversially -
that hate itself can serve as a positive force in establishing a dialogue
between groups who have historically exhibited abhorrence toward one
another. Some of the hate in the EU may have a valid basis, born of
frustration, lack of government action, as well as racist bigotry and
religious fanaticism. In the Balkans, as well as in other regions of
Europe, it is reasonable to assume that the attested to, and proven acts
of atrocity on all sides, will be remembered and acted upon long into the
future. In these societies, hatred is the norm, thus steps must be taken
to investigate those avenues that could ameliorate the problems to come,
to build new bridges of understanding, encourage the injured populations
towards non-violence and tolerance, for forgiveness does not appear to be
a viable option. This whole problem must be looked square in its face, and
that face cannot be covered in cosmetics in order to have its countenance
more favorably viewed. The subject is ugly, the past hurt is ugly, and
the present only gives us small respite to attempt to alter its
complexion, if we are to arrive at an image that all are willing to
accept.
Hate, therefore, must be acknowledged to avoid being driven underground.
In the United States, dialogue between the races is difficult due to the
pressure to be "politically correct". Minorities often feel that any
acceptance of the position of the majority race will be counterproductive
to their cause, while the majority cannot openly express their feelings on
the issues without incurring the wrath of the minority and large segments
of the majority population. As a result, we argue here that hate must not
be driven underground, but must be allowed to surface, be expressed, and
then dealt with in a constructive fashion.
Data released earlier this year suggests that Europeans are largely
ambivalent toward the plight of minorities and migrants in the EU. Thus, if the occurrence of
hate related crimes are to be deterred, the victims and perpetrators of
such crimes will need to find a common ground. This common ground, we
conclude, can only be found through open and frank dialogue. Will the
European Union make the same mistake as the United States, by fostering a
persona of political correctness? Thus far, despite projects such as
Project Athena and vast educational campaigns, many parallels can be drawn
between the US experience and EU happenings. The obvious outcome of the
politically correct position is that it drives the hatred underground,
allows it to ferment, gives it no acceptable manner of expression, and
has, as its reward, hypocrisy.
Works Cited
European Commission. 2001.
How Europeans See Themselves: Looking Through the
Mirror with Public Opinion Surveys. Brussels.
European Commission. 1999.
Treaty of Amsterdam: What has Changed in Europe?
Brussels.
EUMC (SORA).
2001.
Attitudes Towards Minority Groups in the European
Union: A Special Analysis of the Eurobarometer 2000 Survey.
Vienna.
Combating Racism. 2000.
EUMC
Media Release 194-3-E-05/01. 2001.
Europeans are Ambivalent on Minorities and
Migrants. Vienna.
EUMC
Media Release 194-3-E-04/01. 2001.
Against the Silence. Vienna.
EUMC
Media Release 194-3-E-18/00. 2000.
Victims Afraid to Report Racist Incidents.
Vienna.
EUMC.
2000.
Annual Report 1999: Summary. Vienna.
Fleissner, Peter. 2000. Personal Interview.
Peter Fleissner is Head of Unit 2 (Research and Documentation) of the
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Vienna, Austria.
Metropolitan Police Service. 2000.
Operation Athena: The Racial and Violent Crimes
Taskforce. London.
Veness,
David. 2000. Personal Interview.
David Veness of the Metropolitan Police Service in London (Scotland Yard)
is a Assistant Commissioner with the MPS responsible for Specialist
Operations. London, England
