Library’s promotion of “hate crime”

[Chocolatemice]

West Midlands, where it is apparently impossible to keep police stations open. Went to Blackheath library and came across a poster saying it is a designated point for reporting hate crimes.

Am I the only woman who would now find that library designated a dangerous place to be?

What is so special about “hate crimes” that they have specially designated places to report them, and yet people have nowhere to go about real crimes?

We are supposed to have free speech in this country

It's a common misconception. Britain has no free speech provisions in its legal code or political conventions. The American First Amendment is something of an oddity in global legal/constitutional terms.

Agreed, but does that and should that stretch to any perceived hate speech?

It's not free speech without hate speech being permitted. The difficulty comes down to where the line is drawn, it's perfectly possible to have free speech and limit hate speech by legislating against specific, direct threats against individuals or groups but, as soon as you cross the threshold of preventing people from saying unpleasant things (no matter how historically or currently oppressed the targeted individual has been) you completely depart from having free speech.

We have the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the HRA.

We have the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the HRA.

Compare:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

to:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"protection of... ...morals" alone is essentially a carte blanche for restriction of speech, just as "distress or anxiety" in the communications act is wide open (e.g. a religious fundamentalist might find the concept of a woman being free to hold a job distressing).

This seems to be a similar scheme in Solihull in the West Midlands but the information is hopelessly confused! As others have already pointed out a "Hate Crime" is a crime that is prosecuted as more serious because aggravated by "hate" under either a nationally "monitored strand" or Equality Act Protected Characteristic or a local initiative, e.g. Hate of Goths (true, there are other examples but I can't remember them off hand).

By contrast, a "Hate Incident" is not a crime.

I find it hard to believe that the police would want anyone to report actual crimes to a Library or any of the other organisations listed here but that is what it says. The types of crime include a new category that I have never heard of before, Mate Crime! Seriously, if someone you know beats you up rather than a stranger then the police don't necessarily want to know about it? Does that apply to Domestic Violence and "Date Rape"??

It seems from this as if West Midlands Police have provided staff training for a whole variety of organisations to act as "triage points" but I am not 100% certain as there is so much chopping and changing between "Hate Crime" and "Hate Incident" as if they mean the same thing.

Some questions that spring immediately to mind:

How would this system help with apprehending offenders?

What would the impact be on taking statements and the likelihood of CPS taking prosecutions?

What information is taken and held, how securely, and what is passed on to the police?

How does this system impact on the accused, who might be the subject of a malicious complaint? It is clear from this information that an incident need not relate in any way to the premises or other services offered at the "reporting point".

If the police want to farm out policing to voluntary organisations like this, why not train and deploy Special Constabulary (do they still exist??) rather than train-up people who have no accountability to the police?

In terms of the OP comment about "feeling safe", if this is the level of transparency and organisation of the scheme, why would anyone feel safe having random voluntary organisations collecting information on people "reported" for committing Hate Crimes and/or Hate Incidents?

It's bad enough the actual Police visiting people to "check their thinking" (see thread on Triggenometry interview with @HarryTheOwl )

This scheme reeks of Stasi type monitoring of Wrongthink at the same time as compromising investigation and prosecution of real crimes, i.e. Things that are actually against the law, aka criminal offences!

You have to read this to believe the complete dog's breakfast that this is! The page title is "Report a Crime" - it does give contact details for the West Midlands Police but then says (copy and paste but my bolding):

"We've set up independent reporting centres for anyone to come forward and report incidents of hate crime. The centres help victims and witnesses of crime to talk to someone in a safe place.

What you say in the centres are strictly confidential and you can report an incident without speaking to the police. Trainer members of staff are hand to provide you with advice and can refer you to support services if you need any extra help."

Then it lists all the "Hate Crime Reporting Centres" - note, "Hate Crime" not "Hate Incident".

www.solihull.gov.uk/hatecrime

"Policing by consent" contracted out to . . . your local library, Age UK, etc.

Libraries are not on the Solihull list but with the growing list of books being branded as "hateful" and "transphobic", how safe would someone feel asking a "Hate Reporting Centre Library" to order a copy of "Inventing Transgender Children and Young People"?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3799536-Tavistock-face-backlash-over-removing-book-from-library

Libraries and other community centres are used by people who do not have internet access, to job search, log in to report job searches to DWP, children to do their homework. Would a Library dealing with a "Hate Report" ban someone in case they made it an "unsafe place" for staff, other users, volunteers?

We have seen what happens in Universities - and that kid in Scotland was suspended just before final exams for insisting that there are only two genders.

If "Hate Reporting" gets delegated like this, everyone is fair game and the people with most to lose would be those who already have next to nothing because they are out of work.

Gronky, that's why it's supposed to be up to judges, and not the police, to determine what speech reaches the threshold. And apologies, we don't have freedom of speech but freedom of expression, which can only be curtailed in the public interest. Be interesting to see what the judgement here holds on whether it's up to the police to decide that.

The judge at the Judicial review hearing said: “We live in a pluralistic society where none of us have a right to be offended by something that they hear. Freedom of expression laws are not there to protect statements such as ‘kittens are cute’ - but they are there to protect unpleasant things. Its utility lies in exposing people to things that they do not want to hear.”

Hate speech is the line, @WotchaTalkinBoutWillis, but one of the tweets just said, "Huh?" That was cited as evidence of hatred, despite not giving context in any way. It's Owellian. I understand why this seems hard to believe. I can only suggest that you watch the video - the man seeking Judicial Review is an ex policeman himself. He's fairly clear on the difficulties in what the police have chosen to do.

Interestingly, do you know what the police don't regard as hate speech? Misogyny. It's not counted, tracked or recorded as a hate crime.

This. Oh, and this. And then there's this. And this. I could go on.

Good grief. Just looked up my local force. They are encouraging people to report hate non-crime incidents to Hate Crime Officers or via Hate Crime Reporting Centres - there are loads of them!

that's why it's supposed to be up to judges, and not the police, to determine what speech reaches the threshold

I believe it is, in terms of bringing a conviction. The issue is the grey zone in which someone says something that isn't in itself actionable but may form part of a later case. I think it's a rather unusually difficult problem for the justice system to effectively grasp hold of in terms of responsibility for making decisions at initial stages.

Interestingly, do you know what the police don't regard as hate speech? Misogyny. It's not counted, tracked or recorded as a hate crime.

I believe that there are currently attempts in the works to define misogyny as a hate crime. Equally interestingly, around 10k of the 67k reported 'gender hate incidents' in 2018 were against men, for comparison, there were 16k reports of 'race hate incidents'.

Personally, I disagree with the notion that hate crime should be contingent on the identity of the aggressor (the proposed legislation would limit misogyny to that perpetrated by men), it's entirely possible for someone with a specific protected characteristic to attack others on the basis of the same characteristic and, in some ways, it's more hurtful.

Hiptightonions just checked my local Thin Blue Line too and there are Hate Crime Reporting Centres everywhere!!

When did these things appear? There are so many of them and based in an extraordinarily wide variety of organisations.

I would not have much confidence using them as I doubt any of them receive many reports, so are unlikely to be very clued up.

The usual error of "Gender Identity" being a protected characteristic - I bet most people would assume that means "hate based on your sex" rather than anything to do with the most vulnerable and oppressed minority.

Looks like a massive amount of money has gone into this from the quality of the media and materials on my force's website.

Extraordinary!! Police so strapped for cash. Yet so much money sloshing around for tackling "Non-crime"!

Based on my understanding of the law (which is, admittedly, not comprehensive), it's only possible to bring a prosecution based upon direct threats against a group or individual (e.g. all x's should be harmed) rather than saying nasty things about them (e.g. all x's smell funny and listen to silly music). If you're aware of a prosecution based upon the latter, could you please give some details?

I thought that, but it seems not. My (doubtless going to be corrected by an actual lawyer) understanding is that (usually under the public order act) arguments or jokes which are not ordinarily crimes become crimes when certain groups are one half of the dispute.

The most famous example is the Nazi Pug case but it's the same rationale that has been used (by the police without judicial/CPS oversight) to question several feminists and caution a famous sit com writer.

Police couldn't log all this 'hate incident' stuff unless there was some link to a legal basis. That's why they don't log misogyny as hate incidents.

That's why they don't log misogyny as hate incidents. They do though if they choose to - Nottingham does.

They do though if they choose to - Nottingham does.

That's a pilot though isn't it? I rather thought the point was to look at the possibility of adding sex to the hate crime groups.

Libraries should not be in the business of policing. End of.

It's an inappropriate role for a library.

Librarians are not trained - nor should they expect to be trained - in police duties (such as taking reports of a crime).

To me, it's just indicative of the lack of respect that exists for libraries, and librarians (no, I'm not either).

It's also indicative of a failure to adequately police a community.

The most that a library should do in this space is provide information in the form of printed or visual text, available to all users.

A brochure in the stand in the foyer is generally one way such community information is disseminated.

*haha clearly I am not a library. Meant to say, no I am not a librarian.

It's not exactly a pilot, they decided to do it unilaterally
'Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland annually monitor five strands of hate crime:

DisabilityGender identityRace, ethnicity or nationalityReligion, faith or beliefSexual orientation
Forces can include their own definition of a hate crime with several recently adding sub cultures.'
Basically if a police force want to use extra categories they can, which begs the question of equality, why should the police have discretion over which groups they cover.

donquixote one of the serious injustices of the "Hate Incident" system is, as clarified in the case of @HarryTheOwl, is that there is no requirement for any evidence of "hate" in actions or speech.

It is not a crime

• so cannot be prosecuted
• so no need for any evidence
• and there can be no "appeal"
• because the "incident" exists only in the complainant's head
• who is referred to as the "victim" although they might be complaining solely on the basis of some imagined slight to some imagined person
• BUT it can still have consequences for the person accused of the non-crime
• even though none on this is in law, it is just "policies" made up by the College of Policing.

This over reach could not have been foreseen by the MacPherson Report.

The only way "hate" is a crime is an aggravating aspect of something that is against the law.

"Hate incidents" are just someone being offended by something that is perfectly legal - but it still ends up being recorded on a "Crime Report" under the name of the person who has been accused of giving offence, as a "Non-crime Hate Incident" ( I have a feeling that you know all this already!)

I find the "could make some people feel unsafe" aspect very chilling, as it is used to exclude and isolate people on the basis that their very presence (allegedly) might make some imagined person "feel unsafe" - when "feeling unsafe" really means "I don't like that person and I want them banned!"

@Gronky I don't disagree with that. (Those stats are from Nottinghamshire, are they, or is the original study now expanded - do you have a link? Sorry to be lazy, but I'm really interested, just very tired this evening.) Everyone should be able to live free from fear and harassment, and nobody should be exposed to genuine disadvantage or abuse for being who they are. It's just that nobody should be accused of something with no real evidence necessary, and that form part of their official record, either. Surely that's not acceptable in a free society.

It should not be up to the police to quasi-criminalise non-criminal action, with potential real life repurcussions, when the people affected have no right of reply, no way to test whether it's justified, and the evidence bar is so low it's practically on the ground. The judge, again, pointed out that it made no sense at all to define something as motivated by hate when there was no requirement to evidence that hate. None. Not in the words or deeds complained about, not in the individual complained about; it just requires another person to decide that they regard it as hateful. Wholly subjective, and as such, wholly unprovable, too. How does that align with the suggestion that it's a means of gathering evidence that may form part of a later case? There's no test of the quality of that evidence - it's just accepted as hateful if any person deems it to be so. Surely an objective examination of the incident is the bare minimum to expect, if the allegation is to be put against someone's name in a way that could potentially adversely impact them? Where is the concern for the rights of the person complained about?

It's perfectly normal for effective policing to be hampered by safeguards that ensure the rights of the suspect. Halliwell is a really extreme example, and an awful one, but the fact remains that when the interests of forming a case conflict with the rights of an individual to fair procedure and fair evidence gathering, the individual's rights prevail, unless there's overwhelming reason to the contrary. I don't think tweets joking that someone now identifies as a fish qualify under that heading. It's unconscionable to me that someone can make an allegation, backed by no real evidence of the foundation of that allegation, and it's just accepted, and placed on file, on a wholly subjective basis. And there's no appeal possible.

I suppose the judgement will shed some light. Be an interesting read, whichever way it's decided.

*repercussions, sorry.

It's not exactly a pilot, they decided to do it unilaterally

Interesting. That seems quite a big step outside the police's role.

donquixote one of the serious injustices of the "Hate Incident" system is, as clarified in the case of HarryTheOwl, is that there is no requirement for any evidence of "hate" in actions or speech.

I'm very conscious of that. I accept that the police have gone significantly beyond what the law prescribes. I agree with every word of your post.

My point is that there is law which does the same thing. The Nazi Pug video (tasteless as it is and unpleasant as it's producer may be) is very obviously a joke.

I don't think the police could go as far as they have if there hadn't been a, gentle but steady, prevailing wind against free expression across government for many years.

The statistics were national:
www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/news/new-fawcett-data-reveals-gender-is-most-common-cause-of-hate-crime-for-women

Looking at the issue in more depth, I'm now not convinced that hate crime is an enforceable notion to police against and, rather, existing legislation against targeted harassment is more than sufficient. However, if it is to persist, I would like to see it at least made fair in terms of all groups being able to bring grievances.

*I don't see how people being able to report their harassment too whether it be due to their race, their sexuality, or being trans would make it feel more unsafe for me&

What is your view on sexual harassment? You don't mention that. And perhaps one of the oldest most trenchant harassments and prejudices there is?

In all my life, I cannot imagine, or recall, ever running to a librarian to report the fact I'd ben called a slag; a slut; had someone make lewd and disgusting gestures at me; slap my bottom; flashed; parading pornographic pictures around; called me a bitch...and so on......

Women and girls have just had to get on with it........and today sex hate crime is still not treated in the same way as other 'identity' crimes; even though being female is not a matter of identity - and therefore 'chosen'.

Ah, okay, they were from surveys plus Nottingham. I wondered if that had been expanded. Thank you - that's going to be a really interesting read tomorrow.

I agree it's not really manageable, in present form. The balance is wrong.

I might find find my local Hate Crime Reporting Centre and say that Gronky said something hateful and I'd like the police to log it as a hate incident. I'll just pick any old random comment and say I found it threatening and made me feel unsafe, as it's my subjective, agenda-led opinion that counts.

(Obviously I won't, but the point is, my incident report would theoretically be enough for the police to register this against you and you then have it sat there with no recourse to the facts. You might even get the infamous phone call to check your thinking. It's beyond sinister.)

Interesting survey of "Hate Crime Third Party Reporting Centres" in Scotland. As I suspected, most of them hadn't a clue what they were supposed to be doing or how they were supposed to do it and were, effectively "inactive".

Depending on the Council, as far as Libraries are concerned: all, some or none were registered as Reporting Centres and some that were registered did not have the staff or facilities to offer this service.

The survey also looked at understanding of "Hate Crime" vs "Gender Based Violence".

www.scld.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-issues/hate-crime/hate-crime-and-third-party-reporting-centres/

I would be surprised if the situation is very different in the rest of the UK as the most extraordinary mishmash of statutory and voluntary services have registered to be "Third Party Reporting Centres". Some of the centres in the Scottish survey seem to have admitted that they only volunteered to get the Scots Police badge on their website!

From the True Vision website it looks as if this is all part of the £1.5 million handed out to "raise awareness" of Hate Crime in (I think) 2018. There are a small number of named voluntary organisations listed as recipients of funding so I might be wrong. These other "Third Party Reporting Centres" might be locally funded, if funded at all beyond being given a poster to pin up on a Noticeboard, as spotted by the OP in a local library.

So, less "Stasi" and more like the Keystone Cops by the look of things.

What is my view on sexual harassment?
Well I thought it went without saying that of course you should be able to report sexual harassment too, as that should never be tolerated.
It's not a hate incident though. You can still report it if you're abused in public though.

BuzzShitbagBobbly, I haven't come to a conclusion myself but how would you balance that against, for example, someone publicly making wildly unpleasant comments about domestic violence and then working for a charity which supports shelters for victims, because it didn't appear on an enhanced DBS? I would definitely agree that, at the very least, an appeal process is required but should it go as far as nothing being able to be added without the involvement of a judge?