to ask what you consider to be "Hate Crime"

[TessOfTheDinnerbells]

are there any MNers with legal knowledge of this & can you define what would be considered a "Hate Crime" say Vs. Prejudice against race or disability?

Also, is this the same definition that you all had in mind?

ODN: have PM'd you.

Birds, Yes I agree that they tackle Hate Crime but have only witnessed them act after the fact but not include it in an educational format.

I supposed as long as they are teaching children to treat others with respect etc, until it happens, no more needs to be done. Disibility awareness should be taught.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2011/september/inquiry-reveals-systemic-institutional-failure-to-tackle-harassment-of-disabled-people/

Thanks Amber. Just saw another in the news. A girl with LD murdered after incredible abuse and violence. Amazingly the term "Hate Crime" was never mentioned in the article I read (local paper), but neither was the term "aggravated" used either. So much for the press playing their part in educating or raising the issue. Stiff sentences though so some justice.

Of course in the case of disabled people they will sometimes be targeted because they are vulnerable rather than because they are actually hated. I mean bullies don't pick on smaller people because they hate smaller people, but because they can win.

This might not matter to the victim, but it matters if looking for causes and cures.

Yet bullies woudn't hurt smaller people if they liked them? I think malice towards people counts as a form of hate, either way.
Hate crimes are very difficult to define, but most people think it means violence. Verbal abuse, ostracism, getting others to think badly of someone, staring at them in a vicious way...those can all be ways to make someone feel very, very uncomfortable or scared without lifting a proverbial finger, and all are covered under the Equality Act 2010 examples of disability discrimination, for example. Anything that treats someone with a deliberate lack of respect, really.

Yet bullies woudn't hurt smaller people if they liked them?

They have to pick on smaller people or give up being bullies. If they had a dear friend who happened to be small they might not bully him, but what's that got to do with anything? Or were you planning legislation to make every disabled person in the world 'a dear friend' by order?

It's just like mugging. Most muggers will take money from anyone who looks like they can't resist. That isn't of itself a hate crime either, but in some percentage of cases may well be.

You can't include 'Anything that treats someone with a deliberate lack of respect' as a hate crime. It won't work because that is not the law.

My apologies - I have an operation on Thursday for breast cancer and am a bit stressed out, so probably not explaining totally clearly.

The things I outline above are the things that the Act covers which create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for someone with a Protected Characteristic (e.g. disability).

The thing is, as we know, there has been almost zero attempt to find out whether crime or harassment against disabled people was or was not related to their disability in some way until now. By using the definition of 'hate crime' as (essentially) "the person has to make it absolutely totally clear that they were hating or hurting the person because of their disability" resulted in almost zero prosecutions for it (hence odds of 1 in 1300 of having a disability hate crime successful prosecution to date). Hence also the push to redefine it in practical terms as crime/harassment against people who are obviously disabled.

If one sees someone who has Cerebral Palsy and who is for example struggling to walk, and one silently kicks the legs out from under them, can it honestly be said that this wasn't in any way related to them being disabled? Under the old system, yes. The person would almost certainly have to have specifically said something about the person's disability for it to count as a disability hate crime. Under the new guidance, common sense comes more into play. If there are 2 million people saying they have experienced disability hate crimes each year, and we manage to prosecute 1500 people, there is one hell of a failing.

Amber: I think the figures speak volumes but, unfortunately, few are prepared to listen. Anyone who just listens out to many of the high school age children's everyday language then it soon becomes clear how society view the disabled.

Just had a look at this link and saw the pain in her eyes then the determination. If only the rest could feel those emotions for just a second.

Tess, yup. I'm part of the international campaign to have the word 'retarded' re-thought. (Having experienced it myself first-hand by those who think it's really clever to use it as a term of abuse towards autistic people.)

Alas, can't see emotion in that clip as my brain doesn't process face expressions, but I certainly know how much words can have a huge, huge impact on people.

"Hence also the push to redefine it in practical terms as crime/harassment against people who are obviously disabled"

Yes I see that you want to make any crime against someone who happens to be disabled automatically a hate crime.

Which would be a corruption of what our justice system is supposed to stand for and opposed by anyone with any interest in truth, justice and equality.

I realise that many people find the requirement of proof to be terribly inconvenient, but it's how we do things here so you will never be satisfied if you want to bypass that and replace it with 'guilty because I say so'

Can't remember where I said there would be no court case and no evidence heard?

But right now it doesn't even get to that point. It's just discounted completely. It's not as if we get any other sort of prosecution instead. We just get nothing. I and my friends experienced enough direct disability hate crime to sink a small proverbial flotilla and do you think one ruddy lawyer or police person has been interested? Nope.

2 million people experiencing what they believe are hate crimes against them, 1500 prosecutions. Until we learn to hold these things up to that test, and put them before a court etc on that basis, it'll be odds of 1 in 1300 forever. That's my view. You are very welcome to disagree. I think the law has been very, very wrong on this for a very long time.

From that EHRC report linked to above:

"The inquiry did not come across a single case of sexual violence against a disabled person that has been recorded and prosecuted as [disability] hate crime."

Not one. Not one single solitary one. Not ever. Hands up all those who believe that this is a sign of how fair and just our current laws are at the moment? I agree that we must not go too far along the path of 'lynch mob mentality' but right now, as the report also says, police etc aren't even considering disability as a motive, let alone asking questions about such a motive.

Can't remember where I said there would be no court case and no evidence heard?

Oh I can. It was where you supported the push to redefine it in practical terms as crime/harassment against people who are obviously disabled. Which would automatically mean that if a burglar were convicted of robbing three houses he would be guilty of a hate crime for one burglary if the occupant happened to be disabled.

Since we have already heard that it has to be a crime before it can be a hate crime I do not believe that your hate crimes go unpunished - at the very least they would count as assaults, harassment etc and the perpetrator would be convicted or not in the usual way.

I do believe that slights and insults you have suffered go unpunished, but as we have seen those are not hate crimes in this country.

Anyone can produce figures for crimes they imagine occurred. If there was proof then they could have gone on to be convictions for hate crime. The fact that they didn't suggests that in fact you are only guessing that they were motivated by hate and that there was no proof of that at the time.

My guess is that many crimes which are treated as straight crimes are in fact motivated by prejudice and hate. Isn't that what you said? No because I'm saying it is a guess and not pretending that I know that for a fact. and I'm not supporting extra laws bypassing the requirement of proof.

I do want to add that we have seen atrocities committed against vulnerable people - especially in residential settings - because they were less able to defend themselves or to report it. That needs to be addressed and I want the full weight of the law to fall on those responsible. We don't need extra laws for that. Just to enforce the ones we have properly.

To add to everyone's comments above, I work in a crime reduction partnership and so have a basic understanding of what happens. My local Police force treats all hate crimes and hate incidents as a priority. This means that all victims of "hate crimes" (existing crimes motivated by prejudice or perceived to be motivated by prejudice) will receive a visit from a PCSO. But also, all victims of "hate incidents" (anything at all that was motivated by or perceived to be motivated by prejudice that isn't necessarily a crime e.g. verbal abuse, offensive leaflets through your letterbox, bullying at work etc) receives the same service. I suspect other Police forces may do something similar due to the profile of hate crimes / incidents now.

Prejudice can be anything that you can't change about yourself (race, ethnicity, disability, gender, sexuality etc). The perception bit means that either the offender perceives a prejudice (i.e. an assault on a straight man walking past a gay bar would be a hate crime if the offender did it because he perceived the victim to be gay even if he wasn't) or the victim perceives a prejudice (i.e an assault on a black man would be classed as a hate crime if the victim believed it was due to his colour, regardless of whether this was the offender's motivation).

I hope this helps!

But it's not me pushing - it's the EHRC and I'm reporting what I read in their report?

As I haven't detailed the things that have happened to me, you're not in a position to suggest that they are not crimes. If you look at the MENCAP recent clarification of hate crimes against disabled people, ostracism is listed, for example. Me, I've had violence, sexual abuse, financial abuse, etc etc. All real crime. None of it was taken seriously by anyone.

"If there was proof, they could have gone on to be convictions for hate crime" - Not so from what I see. Read the report as to the dynamics around disability hate crime and why it is nearly always not acted on nor seen for what it is. We brought in specific guidance around Race Hate, but that was always missing for disability hate.

Typical problems:

"They aren't capable of giving evidence because they're disabled"
"They can't really know what happened to them because they're disabled"
Reality - they won't make it possible to take evidence in a way that particular disabled people can give it
Reality - they won't allow court cases to take place in a way that particular disabled people can manage

etc etc etc. It's all in there.

It's also why I advise the Crown Prosecution Service on this stuff. At their request. Their words to me were that they had no idea, none at all, how to take evidence from an autistic person in order to secure a conviction of someone. And they are now jolly pleased that they have a good idea. It's already working - we're seeing cases going through.

What I say is based on real life and what I read and am told.

newtothenet - an assault on a black man would be classed as a hate crime if the victim believed it was due to his colour, regardless of whether this was the offender's motivation

So it doesn't have to be true then?

This is my objection. Discarding the facts to fit the political objective.

It would be okay to say "would be investigated as a potential hate crime if the victim believed it was due to his colour* and I suspect that is probably what takes place in the real world.

And that is why the campaigners are angry all the time. They get their bits of paper saying their ideas are neat and they get to sit on committees and make speeches about it, but in the real world we mostly stick to 'innocent until proved guilty'

amberlight - if you look at the MENCAP recent clarification of hate crimes against disabled people, ostracism is listed,

MENCAP can say what they like but in the UK 'not being Amber's friend' is not a crime and never will be. MENCAP don't make laws in the UK and have no authority to clarify hate crimes. They are just a club of people with opinions.

Sadly all groups protecting the interests of minorities seem eventually to reach this phase. What started out as genuine and essential support becomes almost like a religion with faith and dogma replacing thought.

The commandments are always similar

'Everything my minority does is right'
'Anything they want they should have'
'if you disagree with them on any subject you are evil'

I'm unconvinced and will stick with equality and justice for all, regardless of who they are.