Individual and community impacts of racist crime - June 2013
Editorial by Chibo Onyeji, former ENAR Chair
Welcome to this latest edition of the ENARgy webzine,
focusing on the individual and community impact of racist
crime in Europe. It starts with an overview of data
collection mechanisms and available data on the reality of
racist crime in Europe. This is followed by an analysis of the
impact of the EU Framework Decision on racism and
xenophobia for victims of racist crime and an assessment
of how a climate of hostility can create the conditions for
‘hate’ in the United Kingdom. Testimonies by victims of
racist violence give evidence of the harms inflicted, while
further articles focus on the community impact of racist violence and the wider institutional racism
involved. Finally, best practices in support to victims of hate crime – both by the police and by civil
society organisations - are presented.
Every day ethnic and religious minorities face racist crime and violence across the EU. Often this reality
is denied or underestimated. Despite the lack of data and information on racist crime and violence,
ENAR’s Shadow Reports on Racism in Europe have expressed serious concern about an apparent
increase in such crime and its severity in a number of EU Member States. These findings have been
corroborated in reports by other bodies such as the EU Fundamental Rights Agency and the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
In addition, the specificity of racist violence is that it has a ripple effect: not only does the individual
have to deal with the hurt and isolation but everyone who shares that person’s identity becomes a
potential target. This community then has a shared fear that they are vulnerable to harassment and
violence because of their identity. On a wider scale this serves to isolate and polarise groups, creating
tensions within the fabric of society.
While most Member States have some legal protections in place to combat racist crime and violence,
there are very different approaches to recognising racism as a crime, and the scope of the legislation
and remedies varies considerably. However, even where laws are in place, the infrastructure and
political will to ensure effective implementation of the law does not necessarily exist.
In addition, where there is no legislation defining racist crime as an aggravating factor, crime statistics
do not mention whether the crime had a bias element. Even when hate crimes are registered, hate
incidents with low levels of violence are often not reported and therefore rarely recorded. Further, the
recording process is also problematic due to a lack of awareness of some police as to what a racist
crime is and even unwillingness sometimes to record a crime as racist. Indeed, reports by ENAR
members make reference to situations where the police themselves were guilty of racism and where
victims became the subject of investigation when reporting their attacks or were made to feel that the
harassment was self-provoked.
The testimonies and articles in this webzine raise concerns regarding EU Member States’ response to
racist violence. It is therefore essential that Member States effectively implement existing legislation
that protects victims of racist violence. Aggravated sentencing on the basis of racist motive should be
1
introduced in all EU Member States. They should also ensure enhanced reporting and recording of
racist crime and collect data in this area in order to develop adequate policy and legislative responses.
Finally, as the current Board of ENAR draws to the end of its term and I step down as Chair, I would like
to take this opportunity to say how much I have enjoyed working with you all - in serving this great
organisation and our shared cause. But there is, of course, still a long journey ahead in terms of ENAR’s
mission - and, as I move on, I wish ENAR every success in achieving a racism-free Europe.
Invisible victims of hate crime in the EU
By the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
This article focuses on the status of official data collection
mechanisms and on what they (don’t) show in relation to
crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice. It also presents
key data from FRA surveys in this area.
Violence and crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance or by a person’s disability,
sexual orientation or gender identity – often referred to as ‘hate crime’ – are a daily reality throughout
the EU, as evidence collected by FRA consistently shows.
FRA survey findings show that:




On average, 18 % of all Roma and 18 % of all Sub Saharan African respondents in the EU-MIDIS
survey (23,500 respondents in total from various ethnic minority and immigrant groups in the
EU-27) indicated they had experienced at least one ‘in person crime’ (that is, assault or threat,
or serious harassment) that they considered as being ‘racially motivated’ in the 12 months
preceding the survey.
More than one in four respondents from the following groups considered that they were a
victim of ‘racially motivated’ in person crime in the 12 months preceding the survey: Roma in
the Czech Republic; Somalis in Finland; Somalis in Denmark; Africans in Malta; Roma in Greece;
Roma in Poland; and Sub Saharan Africans in Ireland.
One quarter of the more than 93,000 LGBT people surveyed in the EU-27 and Croatia
experienced violence because they are LGBT in the five years preceding the EU LGBT survey,
with the figure rising to one in three for transgender people. When considering the 12 months
preceding the survey, 6 % of all LGBT people report having experienced violence, with the
figure rising to 8 % for transgender persons.
Up to a third of Jewish people in another FRA survey (about 5,800 respondents in eight
Member States) personally experienced verbal or physical anti-Semitic violence in the 12
months preceding the survey. The findings of the survey will be published in the autumn of
2013.
2
Despite action taken at EU and
Member State levels to counter
crimes motivated by hatred and
prejudice, there remains a lack of
confidence among victims that
the authorities can afford them
the protection they need. This often makes victims reluctant to report crime, whether to law
enforcement agencies or any other organisation. FRA survey findings show this quite clearly:
“Despite action taken at EU and Member State levels to
counter crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice, there
remains a lack of confidence among victims that the
authorities can afford them the protection they need”




Between 57 % and 74 % of incidents of assault or threat suffered by members of ethnic
minority or migrant groups in the EU, depending on the group or groups surveyed in each
Member State, were not reported to the police by their victims.
Depending on the group surveyed, between 75 % and 90 % of incidents of serious harassment
suffered by members of ethnic minority or migrant groups in the EU were not reported to the
police by their victims.
Eight out of 10 LGBT persons in the EU and Croatia who were victims of crimes motivated by
hatred or prejudice did not report them to the police.
Three quarters of Jewish people who said they were victims of anti-Semitic harassment did not
report this to the police or any other organisation.
The most common reasons given by people in the FRA’s surveys for not reporting their experiences of
crime included that nothing would change as a result of reporting incidents, that such offences were
everyday occurrences, and that they did not trust the police.
The result is that many hate crimes remain unreported, unrecorded, unprosecuted and, therefore,
invisible. The under-recording of incidents translates into low numbers of prosecutions, thereby
affording victims fewer opportunities for redress. As a result, victims of hate crimes themselves remain
invisible.
It is therefore essential for Member States to put mechanisms in place that would not only enable
victims and witnesses to report hate crimes, but also see to it that perpetrators are brought to
account. If hate crimes are not recorded, then they cannot be prosecuted. In turn, this leads to
offenders being able to carry out their actions with relative impunity.
Under-reporting of hate crime is compounded by the fact that not many
Member States currently have mechanisms in place that enable them to
record hate crime comprehensively. The existence of ‘comprehensive’ (or
‘good’) mechanisms for recording hate crime would produce valuable data
to assist law enforcement agencies, the criminal justice system, policy
makers and civil society organisations in tackling hate crime more
effectively. At present very few EU Member States have comprehensive
data collection mechanisms in the field of hate crime. Member States with
limited data collection – where few incidents are reported, recorded and
therefore prosecuted – can be said to be failing in their duty to tackle hate
crime.
This duty is underlined by case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which has ruled on
several occasions that states are obliged to ‘unmask’ the motivation behind racist crimes or crimes
committed because of the religious belief or political conviction of the victim. In parallel to the
3
standards set by the ECtHR, EU legislation can also guide Member States with respect to recognition of
and responses to hate crime. However, legal and policy responses to combating hate crime differ
widely across Member States, which is also reflected by differing standards of data collection.
Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008, on combating certain forms and
expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, allows for this diversity, leaving
options open for how law makers tackle crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice in their criminal
codes.
The Framework Decision is restricted to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Many Member States have, nonetheless, opted to include other grounds in criminal definitions
protecting against discrimination; such as anti-Semitism, sexual orientation or disability.
The FRA has documented the
current variety in national
legislation pertaining to hate
crime. What is important to note
here is that this variety has a
direct effect on how law
enforcement agencies and criminal justice systems in the EU deal with this type of criminality. This is
evidenced in the scope and transparency of official data collection mechanisms pertaining to hate
crime that are operated in the 27 Member States. These mechanisms can be classified in three broad
categories, as outlined below: limited; good; and, comprehensive.
“It is essential for Member States to put mechanisms in
place that would not only enable victims and witnesses to
report hate crimes, but also see to it that perpetrators are
brought to account”



At present, four Member States operate ‘comprehensive’ mechanisms of data collection,
where a range of bias motivations, types of crimes and characteristics of incidents are
recorded, and where data is put in the public domain; namely: Finland, Netherlands, Sweden
and the United Kingdom.
Ten Member States operate ‘good’ data collection mechanisms, where a range of bias
motivations are recorded and data are generally published: Austria, Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Spain.
Thirteen Member States operate ‘limited’ data collection mechanisms, where few incidents
and a narrow range of bias motivations are recorded, and these data are often not published:
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal,
Romania and Slovenia.
On the basis of its research, based on large-scale surveys conducted by FRA through to legal analysis of
existing legislative responses, the Agency has formulated the following opinions, the implementation
of which would ensure that victims of hate crime are no longer invisible and are able to seek redress:


In conformity with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article
21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, criminal law provisions
pertaining to hate crime in Member States should deal with all grounds of discrimination on an
equal footing.
Legislation should be adopted at the EU and national levels that would oblige Member States
to collect and publish data pertaining to hate crime. This would serve to acknowledge victims
of hate crime, in line with the duty of Member States flowing from the case law of the ECtHR
to unmask bias motivations underlying criminal offences. This data would not allow for the
identification of individuals but would be presented as statistics.
4








As a basic minimum, statistical data should be collected and published on the number of
incidents pertaining to hate crime reported by the public and recorded by the authorities; the
number of convictions of offenders; the grounds on which these offences were found to be
discriminatory; and the punishments served to offenders.
As the right to non-discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR ties in with the right to an
effective remedy under Article 13 of the ECHR, victims of hate crime should have remedies
available to them to enable them to assert their rights under Article 14 of the ECHR. This
would apply in any case where victims believe that the public prosecutor or the criminal court
did not sufficiently address the violation of this right.
To encourage hate crime reporting, confidence should be instilled among victims and
witnesses of hate crime in the criminal justice system and law enforcement.
Member States’ law enforcement agencies and criminal justice systems should be attentive to
any indication of bias motivation when investigating and prosecuting crimes.
Details on hate crime incidents should be recorded to allow for the identification of specific
bias motivations, so that these can be followed up when investigating and prosecuting hate
crimes.
Legislators should look into models where enhanced penalties for hate crimes are introduced
to stress the added severity of these offences. This would serve to go beyond including any
given bias motivation as an aggravating circumstance in the criminal code. The latter approach
is limited in its impact because it risks leading to the bias motivation not being considered in its
own right in court proceedings or in police reports.
Courts rendering judgments should address bias motivations publicly, making it clear that
these lead to harsher sentences.
Where possible under national law, data collected on hate crime should be disaggregated by
gender, age and other variables, thereby enabling a better understanding of patterns of
victimisation and offending.
By way of conclusion, consideration should also be given to the new Victims Directive, in that it
addresses the individual assessment of victims’ needs while specifically making reference to victims of
hate or bias-motivated crime. Hence, this directive acknowledges the rights of those who are victims
of hate crime within a broader framework of recognising enhanced victims’ rights. In this regard,
upholding the rights of generic victim categories should serve to enhance, in tandem, responses to
victims of hate crime in the EU.
Racist violence: What impact for the EU Framework Decision
on Racism and Xenophobia?
By Claire Fernandez, Policy Officer at ENAR
This article examines the impact of the EU Framework Decision on
racism and xenophobia for victims of racist crime and underlines
the importance of implementing this legislation and going beyond
its minimum standards.
5
In Hungary, between January 2008 and July 2010, nine Roma – among whom two were minors - were
killed in racially motivated attacks in which some of the perpetrators used guns and Molotov cocktails.
Research by the European Roma Rights Centre shows that Hungarian authorities failed to provide an
adequate response to those crimes. The lack of effective remedies for victims and their families
contributes to spreading a feeling of impunity when it comes to addressing racist crime.
The EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia was adopted to combat impunity and redress
inconsistencies in Member States’ laws. But what has been its concrete impact?
The Framework Decision: potential and limits
When the EU gained competency on preventing racism and xenophobia, [1] the European Commission
came up with a proposal to flesh out this principle in 2001. The Framework Decision on Racism and
Xenophobia was only formally adopted in November 2008, after years of stalled negotiations within
the EU Council on the Commission proposal.
This EU legislation on racist violence complements international human rights standards and aims to
harmonise the way racist crimes are dealt with under national criminal justice systems. Article 2
encourages States to amend their criminal legislation to punish the act of assistance in racist or
xenophobic activities. Article 4 requires that national legislation specify racist and xenophobic
motivation as an aggravating factor, enhancing the penalties determined by courts.
The final version of the Decision,
however, is a watered down
version of the initial Commission
proposal. The text does not
provide accurate and consistent
definitions of racist activities and behaviours. The scope of public incitement to hatred is also not
defined. Nor is the use of racist and xenophobic rhetoric by public figures and authority
representatives specifically sanctioned. These flaws have had a direct negative impact on the level of
protection of victims of racist crime. For instance, in the Czech Republic, anti-Roma statements by
public figures have led to direct attacks by far-right groups. In Lithuania, racist crimes are frequently
wrongly qualified as “hooliganism”.
“The lack of effective remedies for victims and their
families contributes to spreading a feeling of impunity
when it comes to addressing racist crime”
Transposition and implementation by Member States
Initially, the Framework Decision bound Member States to an obligation of results, not to the forms
and methods to achieve these results. The Treaty of Lisbon has brought criminal law into EU
competency, thus giving the Framework Decision the weight of a Directive, with direct effect for
Member States. The Commission will thus have the power to launch infringement proceedings for
breaching the Framework Decision from 1st January 2014.
The European Commission will issue an implementation report on the Framework Decision in
November 2013. ENAR has long come to the conclusion that the Framework Decision has not lived up
to some of the hopes it raised in 2008.
Three years after the deadline for transposition expired, Greece and Estonia have still not transposed
the Framework Decision in their legal order. Greece’s draft law on racism has been pending adoption
since 2011. On-going debates in the Greek parliament have fuelled tensions between political parties,
6
featuring Holocaust denial by the Golden Dawn. In Estonia, an act amending the current legislation has
still not been submitted for parliamentary adoption. As it stands, the Estonian Criminal Code does not
contain specific provisions that expressly enable the consideration of racist motives to be an
aggravating circumstance in the penalties.
Despite the will to harmonise EU legislation, a number of States, including the UK, have argued that
existing legislation already covered the scope of the Framework Decision, and thus no new offense
was created.
Even when national legislation is up to standard, the Framework Decision sets the bar very low. In
practice, compliance with the EU legislation on racist crime fails to make a change on the ground, as
evidenced consistently by a number of reports, including from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. [2]
The variation in legal provisions in Member States has a direct effect on how criminal law agencies
deal with racist crimes. Narrow definitions often translate in under-recording of incidents. Currently
only Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom collect comprehensive data on hate
crime.
Towards a new impetus against racist violence
ENAR’s network of vibrant grassroots, non-governmental
organisations has called for Member States to go beyond
the Framework Decision and step up their effort to tackle
racist violence, including by:




broadening the scope of data collected on racist
crime through the use of victimisation surveys on
the nature and extent of unreported crimes, the
experiences of crime victims with law enforcement
and the reasons for non-reporting;
carrying out rights awareness among victims of racist crime and engaging in prevention work
with perpetrators;
Collecting and analysing disaggregated data on racist crime to develop effective policies;
Encouraging awareness-raising initiatives to de-legitimise racist and xenophobic prejudices and
negative attitudes, along with initiatives that foster intercultural dialogue and cooperation.
ENAR contributes to debunk
myths on populations targeted by
racist violence such as the Roma.
ENAR members also engage in
discussions
with
national
authorities to raise awareness on
racist crimes. In Lithuania, a
debate was held in the Parliament in May 2013 focusing on racially motivated violence in Lithuania and
beyond.
“The Commission should adopt a holistic approach to
equality and consider the Framework Decision’s
implementation in the frame of other implementation
reports on the equality legislation and the functioning of
the judicial systems”
The European Commission has the opportunity to look into these considerations in its implementation
report. The Commission should adopt a holistic approach to equality and consider the Framework
Decision’s implementation in the frame of other implementation reports on the equality legislation
and the functioning of the judicial systems. Infringement proceedings must be launched against those
7
Member States whose legislation and practices breach the Framework Decision. The stakes are high
for Europe: political leaders should take a stand for equality as a matter of urgency, for this could make
a real change in the lives of victims of racist violence, while countering the rise of the far-right.
[1] Article 29 of the Treaty of the European Union.
[2] On average, 18 % of all Roma and 18 % of all Sub Saharan African respondents in the EU-MIDIS survey
indicated they had experienced at least one ‘in person crime’ that they considered as being ‘racially motivated’ in
the 12 months preceding the survey.
The politics of ’hate’
By Jon Burnett, Institute of Race Relations (IRR), United Kingdom
Jon Burnett of the Institute of Race Relations looks at how,
in the United Kingdom, a general climate of hostility which
becomes politically normalised, is among the factors which
create the conditions for ’hate’.
Emma West probably never wanted to be famous. But even if she did, a two-minute racist tirade
against black, Asian and Polish passengers on a tram in south London, at the end of 2011, brought her
almost instant international notoriety in a form that she no doubt never dreamt of. Less than 24 hours
after her vicious diatribe was posted on the video-sharing website YouTube, over 2 million viewers had
watched her hurling abuse, with a confused-looking toddler sat on her knee, telling passengers ‘you
ain’t English’, ‘It’s nothing now. Britain is nothing now. Britain is f**k all. My Britain is f**k all … Go
back to where you come from, go back to f*****g Nicaragua or wherever you come from. Just f*****g
go back’. Within a few weeks, that number had rocketed to 11 million. As a result of the scale of
publicity generated, the police, who had already spoken to her when the incident took place, renewed
their interest in the case and encouraged the media to distribute the footage further so they would be
able to track her down once more. And soon after, the 34-year-old woman was arrested and
remanded in custody, where she spent Christmas, reportedly for her own protection.
By the time that she first appeared in court, months later, charged with racially-aggravated public
order offences, she had become a regular feature in British tabloids, broadsheets and on TV, derided
and ridiculed as the ‘racist rant’ woman. She had also, unwittingly, become a poster-girl for the far and
libertarian Right, attracting support from the British National Party (BNP), the British Resistance, the
English Defence League (EDL) and the Libertarian Alliance, among others. Far-right groups held
demonstrations outside her numerous court hearings throughout the following year. Merchandise was
produced and sold by the far Right, claiming that the things she said were ‘right’. In May 2013, after a
series of adjournments, she pleaded guilty, to be sentenced the following month.
8
Britain’s new race orthodoxy
In Britain there is a narrative that racism, by-and-large, is over. With two of the men responsible for
the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence sentenced in 2012, nineteen years after it took place, the
orthodoxy is that violent racism is now, in general, a throwback to a time gone by; a reminder of a
darker, more violent age. Speaking after the sentencing of the two men, the prime minister argued
that Britain is ‘less racist’ than at the time of Stephen’s street killing in 1993. It was a sentiment echoed
by much of the press and the intelligentsia, and one which co-exists with the mass-attention over
Emma West. For the orthodoxy goes that, as the nation enters a more enlightened era, racism carries
on only in the motivations and actions of those who are easily stereotyped as ill-adapted, maladjusted
loners, motivated by hate. In short, racism is perceived to be the domain of the Emma Wests of the
world, isolated, disparaged, and confined to a periphery.
That this orthodoxy has gained
traction after the sentencing of
(two of) Lawrence’s killers is ironic.
For the teenager’s death in 1993
had a seismic impact, largely as a
result of his parents’ tireless
campaigning and the way they
confronted head-on a combination
of official incompetence and mendacity. Were it not for their tenacity, there would never have been
the public inquiry headed by Sir William Macpherson which forced Britain to acknowledge the reality
of institutional racism in the criminal justice system. Nor, perhaps, would there have been an
acknowledgement of the violent racism on the streets that, in some parts of the country at least, was
routine. Such was the national soul-searching it caused that the convictions in 2012 became something
close to catharsis. They were celebrated as a shared victory, by representatives of the same criminal
justice system that initially failed the Lawrence family so cruelly, the same politicians who initially
ignored their plight, the same media that initially saw the racist murder as something not worthy of
news. And they were celebrated not just because they represented some semblance of justice being
done, but because they could justify a belief that there has been some kind of break from the past.
“If the anti-racist struggles of a generation ago recognised
that combating racist attacks necessarily involved
challenging the state’s denial that racism existed, then the
anti-racist struggles of today necessarily involve
challenging the state’s denial of its complicity in creating
such racism”
But the lessons of the Macpherson Report are being
unlearned. As Britain’s leaders bask in a collective belief
of a new post-racist age, the reality is that racial violence,
rather than having been largely consigned to the past,
has widened in contour, broadened in scope. Since
Stephen Lawrence was killed, there have been over 100
racist murders in the UK, many of which occurred in
similar circumstances of brutal unprovoked street
attacks. For the most part, just as in the immediate
aftermath of his murder, they barely featured on the
public radar. And behind these attacks exists a reality of
racial violence as everyday occurrence. Over 37,000
racially or religiously aggravated crimes were recorded by
the police in England and Wales in 2011/12 (the last year
for which statistics are available), and it is widely
accepted that these represent a significant underestimate.
9
What the struggles of the Lawrence family forced upon the UK’s public and political consciousness, if
only fleetingly, was a recognition that the realities of racist abuse were connected to the realities of
institutional racism – the policies, practices, edicts and actions of the state. Asylum seekers, for over a
decade the human guinea pigs in a policy experiment of dispersal, packed off to towns and cities
unprepared for their arrival and where they are often isolated, have in many cases borne the brunt of
a surge of racist attacks. Depicted as a homogenous mass of parasites by local journalists, who merely
paraphrase the message of a national press which takes its quotes from national politicians, asylum
seekers have been hounded from the areas they have been sent to. Within a few years of dispersal
policies being implemented, police revealed that 2,000 racist attacks had been recorded against them.
Some have proved fatal.
Such attacks indicate what can happen when a particular group is scapegoated and this is not
restricted to asylum seekers. Islamophobia, embedded in the war on terror, has fuelled anti-Muslim
violence across the UK. There has certainly been a spike in attacks against mosques – firebombings
being the most serious – in the aftermath of the brutal murder of the soldier Lee Rigby, by two Muslim
men in 2013. But this merely marks a continuation of a reality of anti-Muslim attacks that were taking
place long before. ‘Burn the lot of them out’, wrote a former soldier on Facebook just before he ran a
gas-pipe into a mosque in one city in 2010, for example. As wild, conspiratorial theories of
‘Islamification’ circulate, the ripping off of niqabs, spitting at people and assaults have become
everyday occurrences.
Racism as ‘hate’
This is not to say that ‘old’ targets of racial violence have been replaced. Black communities, for
example, still bear a brunt of abuse and assault. But it is to say that the perception of racism as
something now confined to the periphery of Britain is a fallacy and one encouraged by the state as
racism itself is being redefined and stripped down to refer only to its rawest individualised expression.
For some years now, racism has
been
articulated
as
one
expression of ‘hate’. The hate
crime agenda, adopted from the
US,
currently
focuses
on
particular
protected
characteristics including victimisation based on, for example, race, sexual orientation or disability. All,
of course, are groups that suffer real forms of multiple discrimination and hostility. But what the hate
crime agenda does is reduce racism to personal enmity; it displaces racism from the political to the
psychological. And in doing so, it not only absolves the state of responsibility for its role in
institutionalising racism, but posits the state as the arena through which racism can be negated. With
the hate crime agenda to the fore, the terrain of anti-racism is being shifted, and removed from the
community struggles within which it had till now been able to make its most progressive gains.
“The perception of racism as something now confined to
the periphery of Britain is a fallacy and one encouraged by
the state as racism itself is being redefined and stripped
down to refer only to its rawest individualised expression”
If the anti-racist struggles of a generation ago recognised that combating racist attacks necessarily
involved challenging the state’s denial that racism existed, then the anti-racist struggles of today
necessarily involve challenging the state’s denial of its complicity in creating such racism. In the
absence of this, we are being inveigled into an easy moral outrage over an obvious and public
spectacle of vituperative hate, whilst the ideological conditions and political priorities shaping this
hatred go unchallenged.
10
Victims of racist crime tell their stories
The direct testimonies of victims of hate crime can act as
powerful and focused evidence of the need and
effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of law and policy to tackle
hate crime. Speaking out can also be an important route to
empowerment for victims of hate crime. Kenza Isnasni
explains why she will never remain silent about the murder
of her parents by a far-right supporter, while Mamadou
Camara gives his perspective as a relative of Ndoye
Yatassaye, victim of a racist killing in Belgium. Finally, Adla
Shashati gives insight into the everyday violence migrants
face in Greece.
Never forget….
By Kenza Isnasni
These identity pictures were taken during their first year in Belgium, when they were still welcome.
Morocco, the birthplace of my parents, is part of my story. It was with a lot of courage that my parents
made numerous sacrifices in order to give a decent future to their children. Because of this, they are
for me a source of daily inspiration.
On 7 May 2002, they were killed by someone who, inspired by discourse promoting hatred and
xenophobia, considered that they no longer had the right to live.
They should not be forgotten, our parents should not be forgotten,
all the immigrant workers who fought for their rights and for being
recognized as citizens should not be forgotten. In factories, mines
and on construction sites, they had to face difficult working
conditions, as well as racism and the far-right. Then, we were born.
They educated us, pushed us to study. They did not want to see us
facing the same working and living conditions.
This is our story. A story that is not taught enough in our schools,
but that is nevertheless part of the collective memory of all Belgian
citizens. At the time, we already debated on integration issues that
continue to remain in the limelight in various different manners.
Today, I am the third generation and I also represent Belgium,
whether we like it or not. How many more generations must still
struggle before that is understood, once and for all?
Past debates on immigration and integration have been followed by
more recent debates on Islam. This Islam which is in the spotlight overshadows political parties’ failure
to establish a real societal project to tackle current economic and social problems.
11
Cases of discrimination against Belgian Muslim citizens are too many to be counted. Our emotions take
over, as this situation is appalling in a society where people aspire to live together. This situation
affects us because it is unbearable to be discriminated against in a job interview. It affects us because
it is unbearable to see girls being excluded from schools because they choose to wear the veil.
This reality affects us because it is unbearable to see that certain media spread so many prejudices
stigmatising Muslim citizens. It affects us because we were convinced that legislation would solve
discrimination. It affects us because these discourses are propagated by the so-called ‘democratic’
political parties. This situation affects us because anti-Muslim racism is increasingly considered (even
by the elite) as acceptable. This anti-Muslim racism, once underrated, has now become a reality.
Without a doubt, reports of discrimination against Muslim citizens
are alarming, but let us stand back a little and observe the reality
with a critical eye. Let us observe how these debates are conducted
and how different approaches and positions are interpreted.
Nowadays, racism is presented as a matter of freedom of
expression. Racist crimes are the result of such interpretation. It is
the trivialisation and acceptance of these racist discourses that lead
to such tragedies as the one experienced by my family. There is only
a thin line between this trivialisation and the way my parents’
murderer manifested his right to freedom of expression; not to
mention the endless and intolerable misunderstandings that these
discourses generate, preventing any honest, fair and impartial
debate on the issue. In other words, the racist crimes of the past,
arising from the discourses that we used to condemn, will soon, in a
way, be legitimised. Racism is a crime, not an opinion. Do we still
need to repeat this?
Every year, on 7 May, I struggle. It is impossible to forget. If I chose not to sink into oblivion and
silence, it is because the price we paid was much too high. I write because I want to continue
testifying. It is for all those who are gone that we must refuse to remain silent.
I am convinced that things will change; history has shown that change can happen. But these changes
will not happen without the mobilisation of all. Everyone should raise their voice and testify, file a
complaint, or use existing legal instruments even if they are not perfect. Regardless of what happens,
let us not surrender and accept silence.
My engagement is an enduring tribute to all the victims of racism, all over the world. I will continue
fighting because the current situation is disturbing. I will continue to raise awareness of the need to
prevent the rise of racism, for as long as necessary. Now is no longer the time for speeches or
promises. Now is the time to act.
12
Conversation with Mamadou Camara, President of the Council of Malians in Belgium and
relative of Ndoye Yatassaye, murdered in Antwerp in 2006
Could you tell us more about the racist crime of which Ndoye Yatassaye was a victim in Antwerp in
2006?
Our sister was the victim of a horrible and unspeakable crime and I still have a hard time
comprehending it. She was killed for no other reason than having a different skin colour. Her murderer
didn’t even ask himself who she was. Did she have a family, any children…? Not only did he kill her, but
he also killed the child of which she was taking care of at the time of the incident.
How did you feel as a relative of the victim?
How would you expect to feel after such a tragedy? We were angry, stunned, horrified; I still can’t find
the right words to express our state of mind. Simply incomprehensible!
What impact has this crime had on your community in Antwerp? How did your community feel after
the murder?
I think that the African community in Antwerp had to witness something that we don’t even dare to
watch on TV or at the cinema. Something so horrible it makes you close your eyes. Members of the
community became withdrawn and kept to themselves. Thankfully, we do not have a culture of
revenge, but one of forgiveness. To forgive, however, you have to understand - but ever since 2006
until this very day, nothing but incomprehension prevails.
What was the response of the police/the judiciary? In your opinion, was their reaction to the crime
efficient and sufficient?
The police did their job and also punished the culprit. Without going into any detail – the minimum
was done.
What impact can racist discourses have on this kind of tragedy?
Racist discourses have always made people point fingers at those who are different, people who then
serve as scapegoats and are held responsible for other people’s own hardships, for their insecurities
etc. Once it’s the black community, then the Jews or the Arabs, and today it is directed against Islam. I
am wondering: Where will this take us? These discourses are responsible for what happened in 2006.
The killer acted on what he had been hearing every day, on prejudices according to which foreigners
only come here to steal people’s job etc. Those who support and propagate such discourses are the
real causes of our societal problems.
Do you think that there has been any progress in the fight against racist violence in Belgium since
this crime?
No, nothing has changed – on the contrary, not even the so-called mainstream political parties take it
upon themselves to eliminate such racist discourses. How can there be an improvement?
Improvement will only happen if we finally manage to accept our differences and to live together
without pointing fingers at others as the cause for our own hardships.
13
What needs to be done in order for the situation to improve?
In my opinion, education must be the focal point. It is from a very young age that you learn about
others and about how to live with them and their differences. Moreover, the media need to stop
thinking about nothing but profit at any cost, and political parties have to stop lying to us with
simplistic discourses, and instead find real solutions to the problems which our society faces.
But so far I have little hope, as less than two weeks ago, my five-year-old son was called “monkey” by a
child his own age. What am I supposed to think of such an incident?
The violence of racism in Greece
By Adla Shashati, Greek Forum of Migrants
This is one of the most difficult periods for Greece and its citizens, both natives and immigrants.
Currently, the country is reeling from a 26% unemployment rate (56% for youth under 25), drastic cuts
in pensions and social welfare services and overall social unrest.
The economic crisis and the implementation of
increasingly debilitating austerity measures have
coincided with an alarming rise of far right groups
with xenophobic and racist opinions. The rise of the
neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is an important
example of this trend. During the last three years,
Golden Dawn has emerged from obscurity to
become an increasingly popular major political force
holding seats in the Greek Parliament.
Racist violent attacks have also increased and
according to migrant communities and refugee
organisations, the number of known racist violence
incidents does not represent the real extent of this
phenomenon in the country. This is mostly because the victims of racist violence are afraid to report
the crime to the police. From January to December 2012, the Racist Violence Documenting Network
has recorded a total of 154 racially motivated attacks, of which 151 were committed against refugees
and migrants and 3 against European citizens (1 Romanian, 1 Bulgarian and 1 Greek). The majority of
incidents concern physical attacks, while the types of crimes are mainly severe body injuries and
assaults.
There were also incidents of property damage and arson against foreigners’ businesses or residences.
The recording of incidents reveals qualitative evidence regarding the nature of the attacks: the
violence of the attacks increases while there is greater tolerance or fear by witnesses who do not
intervene to assist victims during the attacks. In many cases victims report the use of weapons, such as
clubs, crowbars, folding batons, chains, brass knuckles, knives and broken bottles during the attacks,
while the use of large dogs has been repeatedly reported in the area of Aghios Panteleimonas and
Attica square. The victims suffer multiple injuries such as fractures, contusions, lesion injuries,
abrasions, limited eyesight etc. It is noted that a fatal attack on an Iraqi man in August 2012 was
allegedly racially motivated.
14
There has also been a dramatic decrease in the freedom of movement among migrants living in highly
targeted areas of Athens, especially at night when the level and severity of violence is most frequent.
The government has set up a special unit within the police to deal with racist crimes but this unit will
not have results unless the Greek state shows more willingness to prosecute and punish those
responsible for racist crimes.
The country is currently at a dangerous threshold and it seems that there is no solution to the
problem. The government, the media and the majority of the society seem to be more concerned with
controlling people who remain in the country with an irregular status rather than prosecuting
perpetrators and responding to the criminality of racist violence.
Translations by Oana Guth and Lisa Häusermann
The banality of racist violence
By Dr. Paul Iganski, Senior Lecturer in Social Justice, University of Lancaster, United Kingdom
This piece highlights the fact that perpetrators of racist
violence are mainly ordinary people who offend in the
unfolding of their everyday lives. It also points to the need
for dialogue with offenders and restorative justice
interventions in order to raise awareness of the wider
impact and consequences of their actions on entire
communities.
The spectre of extreme-right violence rarely seems to be out of the news these days. Most recently,
the National Socialist Underground trial in Munich has been focusing the world’s media on the
problem of neo-Nazi violence and terror. Racially motivated crimes involving premeditated acts of
murder of the type subject to the trial are thankfully very rare. Far more numerous are the thousands
of other racist incidents occurring on Europe’s streets every year. The majority of incidents involve
insults and abuse. Whether they are verbal or physical attacks though, all racially motivated incidents
leave long-lasting scars. And although for any one individual the odds are against being victimised, for
victimised communities racial violence represents a significant social problem.
The vast majority of perpetrators
do not subscribe to neo-Nazi
ideology or sport the symbolism
of far-right extremism. They also
do not carry out the type of
premeditated acts of extreme
violence alleged to have been
committed by the National Socialist Underground. Perhaps more chillingly, the perpetrators of racist
violence are just ordinary people who offend in the unfolding of their everyday lives. Paradoxically,
there might be some comfort in thinking that those who carry out acts of racist violence are a just
small minority confined to the extreme ideological fringes of society. It can be rather more disturbing,
however, to contemplate that those responsible for acts of racist violence are among us and that
“Rather than ideologically fuelled attacks, the actions of
many offenders are expressive acts, which occur on the
spur of the moment when triggered by a perceived slight,
a grievance, a minor conflict characteristic of the routine
incivilities of everyday life”
15
incidents occur as offenders and victims go about their daily lives. For the victims, sadly it is commonly
a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Rather than ideologically fuelled attacks, the actions of many offenders are expressive acts, which
occur on the spur of the moment when the opportunity arises or when triggered by a perceived slight,
a grievance, a minor conflict characteristic of the routine incivilities of everyday life. Arguably, many
offenders emotionally express everyday sentiments of prejudice that are intricately woven into the
socio-cultural fabric of many societies and hence in many people’s minds rather than manifest
persistent and enduring sentiments of
ideologically driven hatred. There is no
single type of offender. There is a tendency
though for offenders to be young males for
whom violence and aggression are
acceptable. The translation of hostility into
action is often fuelled by a sense of
grievance or the dynamics of acting out in
front of friends and peers.
Practitioner experience suggests that many
offenders are generalists who are involved
in a variety of offending activity over time.
Arguably, most of the perpetrators of racist crimes are in general much more like other offenders than
unlike them in their characteristics and in the attitudes and beliefs they express. These attitudes turn
into acts of overt hostility or violence in situations of emotional arousal and threat. Offenders’ actions
are fuelled by a variety of impulses - anger, resentment, frustration, retaliation, revenge, thrill-seeking
or fun - rather than being solely, or even mostly, motivated by animus against their victim. And
practitioner experience also suggests that many offenders have chaotic and conflicted lives and that
such disadvantage often provides the context for their offending. The actions of many offenders result
from frustrations and anger directed at themselves or against other persons. Sometimes the person
targeted is a convenient scapegoat for the anger felt by the offender. Anger is a common consequence
of the emotional, personal and social problems experienced by some offenders and such problems
often precipitate incidents of offending.
This type of understanding that practitioners have developed about the impulses and motivations of
racist offenders has informed the design of programmes for their rehabilitation - although there are
relatively few such programmes in Europe. Each of the programmes offer an opportunity for offenders
to reflect upon their behaviour in a way not offered when offenders are solely dealt with by the courts.
The challenge is to contemplate that many racist offenders are not an aberration and not beyond
redemption. A degree of understanding and acceptance is necessary for dialogue with some offenders,
rather than rejection and condemnation. This potentially opens up the opportunity for constructive
engagement for work with offenders to seek to redeem them from the prospect of future offending
and by consequence reduce future victimisation.
Arguably many perpetrators of racist crimes are not fully aware of the consequences of their
behaviour at the time they offend. While all crimes hurt in one way or another, victims of racist crime
can suffer distinct harms in terms of greater post victimisation emotional and psychological impacts.
And the consequences can also spread well beyond the immediate victim. Racist crimes can terrorise
communities. Other people who share the victim’s identity and live in their neighbourhood - and even
16
beyond - and who hear about the crime, are likely to be fearful that they could be targeted too. A
similar sense of fear can be spread amongst other communities who are commonly victims of racist
crimes. And when symbolic targets are selected, such as in the daubing of racially or religiously
offensive graffiti on the walls of a synagogue or mosque, or cemeteries desecrated, shock waves can
be sent across communities, irrespective of whether the offenders intended to terrorise.
It is possible therefore that interventions which help offenders develop insight into the harms they
inflict might potentially inhibit further offending. On the basis of such understanding, a number of
programmes for racist offenders explicitly seek to foster victim empathy: a belief that if the awareness
of offenders can be raised about the impacts and the consequences of their actions and the words
they use, then with such insight they might think twice before repeating their behaviour.
The principle of empathy for the victim also lies at the heart of restorative justice interventions. Such
interventions help to restore victims’ and communities’ losses by holding offenders accountable for
their actions by making them repair the physical and emotional harm they have caused. Restorative
justice places emphasis on everyone affected by the crime - the community and the victim as well as
the offender - to ensure that each gains tangible benefits from their interaction with the criminal
justice system. Such victim-offender mediation has been used in an increasing number of contexts and
its use appears to be growing in the case of racist crimes.
It is clear that racist crimes do not
occur in a vacuum. The contexts
for such crimes matter. There is a
mutual relationship between the
racist attitudes of perpetrators of
racist crimes and the wider
communities from which the perpetrators are drawn. Such attitudes shape and serve to legitimise the
perpetrator’s prejudice and hostility. While offenders’ actions also cannot therefore be fully
understood without understanding the shared hostility and intolerances in the localities where they
live, interventions with offenders cannot arguably be fully effective if they do not take into account the
local contexts for offending. The logical conclusion is that interventions need to be tailored to the local
conditions in which racist crimes occur by addressing the shared values and attitudes which inform
offending. The involvement of local communities in rehabilitative interventions with offenders is
critical to counteracting the influence of locally shared prejudice and hostility.
“Restorative justice places emphasis on everyone affected
by the crime - the community and the victim as well as the
offender - to ensure that each gains tangible benefits from
their interaction with the criminal justice system”
Overall, then, while the particular hurts inflicted by racist crimes need to be acknowledged and
understood to inform effective support for victims, the hurts and the deficits of perpetrators, which
often provide the context for their crimes, also need to be acknowledged for effective interventions
against racist offending. It is relatively simple to label and condemn offenders as ‘extremists’. It is
rather more challenging to seek to accept that they are not an aberration and to seek to engage and
work with them to steer them away from future offending.
17
The anti-Semitic killing in Toulouse and its impact
By Ari Sebag, Vice-President of the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism
(Licra), France
Ari Sebag, Vice-President of Licra, gives an analysis of the
anti-Semitic killing last year in Toulouse, France and its
impact: what reactions it triggered among political parties
and its consequences for Jewish and Muslim communities
in France.
What happened
On 11 March 2012, Imad Ibn Ziaten, a 30-year-old officer of the 1st regiment of parachutists, was
murdered in broad daylight. On 15 March, three soldiers of the 17th regiment of parachutists of
Montauban were shot at in front of a cash machine. Mohamed Legouad, 24 years old and Abel
Chennouf, 26 years old will die that very day, and only Loïc Liber, 28 years old, will survive but remain
tetraplegic. On 19 March, a Jewish school was the next to be targeted. Jonathan Sandler, a 30-year-old
teacher, and his two sons Arieh and Gabriel, respectively 5 and 3 years old, are killed. The murderer
will then pursue Myriam Monsonego, an 8-year-old girl, in the schoolyard before shooting her down.
The killer, Mohamed Merah, is a young 24-year-old man close to Islamist terrorist movements. He will
be killed on 22 March in his apartment, following an assault by police officers.
The deliberate coldness in relating these facts could make us consider this act simply as the ultimate
deed of a dangerous madman. And we have to admit that this is the main characteristic of this man
who cold bloodedly killed seven people and seriously injured an eight person in the space of eight
days.
Nevertheless, these acts have a
strong political significance. The
persons killed were French soldiers
of North African descent involved
in the war in Afghanistan, as well
Jewish children and one adult
within a religious school. Three
were killed for being ‘renegades’ or ‘traitors to the cause’ in the eyes of their murderer, and the four
others simply because they were Jewish.
“Although this tragedy should have brought the nation
together, it reignited the debate on immigration and
integration in the midst of the presidential campaign, thus
leading to increased feelings of hate and intolerance
among some people”
How could such an engagement arise in the mind of a French child, born in the Republic of France?
What responsibility do politicians, the media and communities bear in making such an engagement
possible? This will not be the focus of this article, but it must be taken into consideration – we have to
ask ourselves the right questions and try to answer them.
18
The context
At the time of the incidents, we are in the midst of the presidential campaign, just two months before
the elections.
During his presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy has revived the emergence
of separate communities, by using divisionary politics, in the name
of an unknown strategy. Was he using a ‘divide and rule’ strategy?
Or was he trying to put integration problems on the spot by pitting
those involved against each other? Whatever the reason, during
this period, xenophobic, racist and anti-Semitic discourses
reappeared with a vengeance and taboos started to disappear,
reigniting a certain freedom of speech – even by the highest state
representatives (think, for instance, of the discourses of Mr.
Hortefeux, then Minister of the Interior, or Mr. Guéant, in the same position later).
Indeed, in May 2012, the annual report of the National Advisory Committee on Human Rights (CNCDH)
on racist and anti-Semitic incidents committed in 2011 in France, reveals that after two years of
decrease, France is once again experiencing a strong increase in racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic
incidents: + 23%, i.e. 1,530 incidents. Racist incidents have been multiplied by five since 1992.
At the time, we were also, since the previous summer, at the height of a controversy around ritual
slaughtering that a documentary broadcast on national television had presented as being the norm in
all slaughterhouses of the Paris region. The programme thus led all inhabitants of this region to believe
that they were eating halal meat without knowing it. This debate was taken over by the far right during
the presidential campaign, but it was initiated by the mainstream right. Débat repris comme fer de
lance de l’extrême droite dans la campagne présidentielle, mais initié par la droite traditionnelle.
One should also remember that at that time, France was engaged in a war against the Talibans in
Afghanistan, together with most western countries, and that in this framework, surveillance and
investigation work was being conducted among radical Islamist movements in France.
In this context, it thus becomes easier to understand how a mentally unbalanced person could dream
of becoming a hero at the service of his cause. The elements mentioned above were justifications for
his ‘martyr’ acts to defend the supposed oppression of his community.
But why attack a Jewish school and commit the most abominable of crimes by cold bloodedly killing
children?
Here again, the French media bear a strong responsibility. On 30 September 2000, Charles Enderlin,
permanent correspondent of the national television channel France 2 in Israel, broadcasts a report
which will have an incommensurable impact. He shows the story of the murder of a child, Mohamed El
Durah, in his father’s arms, by the Israeli army.
This child thus became the symbol of the pro-Palestinian cause, or rather anti-Sionist cause, by
presenting Israelis as capable of killing a child with heavy weapons. This lie has still not been corrected
by the journalist and his television channel, who are sticking to their position despite the fact that the
report was called into question by several serious experts and journalists. The state of Israel has just
19
published (in May 2013) a much awaited report denying any responsibility in this murder and
demonstrating that nothing in the report can lead to think that the child was killed at that moment.
This symbol also served as a pretext for the horrendous attack on the Jewish children of Toulouse, thus
showing the terrible consequences biased information can have.
Reactions to the killings
Politicians:
Politicians from across the political spectrum immediately strongly condemned the horrendous acts
and called for national unity as the only way of responding to the horror.
However, once the initial emotions subsided, each party tried to reject the responsibility on the other,
rapidly forgetting the importance of a republican, non-partisan and unifying discourse in such
circumstances.
Thus, once the killer as well as his links to extremist Islamist movements were identified, each political
party felt obliged to react. Most of the presidential candidates seized the opportunity to differentiate
themselves from their opponents and to put themselves in the limelight.
Interreligious debate:
After horrified declarations, which nevertheless called for reason and moderation, the representatives
of the Jewish and Muslim communities called for calm and for interreligious dialogue, warning against
any stigmatisation of French Muslims as a result of the killings. The declarations of the teacher’s father
and two of the children’s grandfather were in this respect those that most stayed in people’s minds.
All, however, were aware of the risk of communities cutting themselves off and are to this day trying
to diminish this risk, albeit with limited success.
Consequences of the Mérah case
There were incredible reactions of
support to the killer in the name
of the ideas he was defending.
This was notably the case on the
occasion of the minute of silence
in memory of the victims called for by Nicolas Sarkozy in all the schools of France, on 20 March 2012 at
11.00. This provoked tensions and anti-Semitic reactions in a number of schools. In a secondary school
in Rouen, a teacher asked her pupils to respect one minute of silence for Mohamed Mérah, presented
as a victim. A referee was also suspended for refusing to observe the minute of silence imposed by the
Sports Minister.
“The awareness of this new anti-Semitism under the cover
of anti-Sionism was necessary, but will it suffice alone to
thwart the spread of violence and racist hate speech?”
Such tragedies often generate numerous excessive reactions and divisions among the population,
because of the injustice and anger they provoke. Although this tragedy should have brought the nation
together, it reignited the debate on immigration and integration in the midst of the presidential
campaign, thus leading to increased feelings of hate and intolerance among some people. This rise in
20
racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia resulted in an increase in insults and physical
assaults.
Nevertheless, the tragedy seems to have had a positive impact by stimulating interreligious dialogue
between Jews and Muslims. They finally became aware of the damage caused by importing the IsraeliPalestinian conflict to France and its influence on a disoriented youth looking for a cause to defend.
The awareness of this new anti-Semitism under the cover of anti-Sionism was necessary, but will it
suffice alone to thwart the spread of violence and racist hate speech?
Indeed, these discourses, often initiated with the complicity of some political parties, have led to antiSemitism to come back to its original roots and to gradually shift from a pseudo-political discourse to
ideology. It is reappearing, without a mask, in the mouths of its staunchest supporters: far-right
movements. We therefore have a daunting task ahead of us because Jews, just because they are Jews,
are once again at the centre of numerous controversies, as in the most horrendous moments of
history – something many seem to have forgotten.
Difficult moments are still to come. Only a strong republican and secular discourse will prevent a brutal
return to obscurantism. I make that wish.
Germany: Time to Deal with Institutional Racism
By Eddie Bruce-Jones, Lecturer in Law, Birkbeck College School of Law, University of London
In the context of a spate of racist crimes committed by a
neo-Nazi group and police brutality against Black
minorities, this article analyses the institutional racism
prevalent in political, legal and law enforcement
institutions in Germany.
The recently commenced German trial of the National Socialist Underground, reportedly the largest
neo-Nazi trial in German history, has made ‘institutional racism’ a public issue in Germany. For some, it
has always been an issue. This includes Semiya Simsek, daughter of Enver Simsek, the first man
murdered in the serial killings committed by the NSU since 2000, who thought early on that her father
was killed for being Turkish. The institutional racism claim refers not to the Nazi-killing itself, but to the
police response to this and similar murders. The family of the first victim claims that the police did not
spend time looking for the murderers, but instead purported that the victim was involved in dangerous
and illegal activity and that the perpetrators of the murders were likely to be non-Germans. In other
words, political, legal and law enforcement institutions relied on blatant prejudgments and raciallyand/or culturally-informed assumptions about the identities of both victims and perpetrators.
Institutional racism is a term that has a broad meaning in settings like the United Kingdom and the
United States. This general meaning relies on understanding what institutional racism is not. Whatever
institutional racism is, it is not the mere presence of interpersonal violence or fanatical extremism. The
‘institutional’ part indicates that racism exists in the very fabric of our social lives, constituted through
our agencies, governing bodies, and legal systems, for example - including those that we embrace as
socially beneficial.
21
To define institutional racism as a policy-oriented term of art is a more specific task. In the United
Kingdom, following multiple failures in the police response to the murder of a teenage boy named
Stephen Lawrence, [1] the 1999 publication of the Macpherson Report became a milestone in
codifying a particular conception of institutional racism. The definition helped to succinctly describe
institutional racism, both in regard to the London Metropolitan Police as well as more generally. The
definition reads: ’[T]he collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional
service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in
processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice,
ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.’
This definition, as well as the
process of producing it publicly in
the six years following Lawrence’s
death, has helped British society
think of racism beyond the
interpersonal. This particular
formulation has had traction, having shifted the starting point of discussing institutional racism from
the nebulous to the relatively concrete. This has been empowering in the United Kingdom, and as I
recently witnessed at a recent day-long workshop on institutional racism in Germany, hosted by the
Büro zur Umsetzung von Gleichbehandlung e.V. (Office for the implementation of Equal Treatment), it
has been a thought-leading concept among German activists, who are now in the process of refitting
the definition for the German context. This has become evident in the context of the NSU trials as well,
as various reports on the trial have referenced the British context as a possible guiding practice for
Germany.
“Political, legal and law enforcement institutions relied on
blatant prejudgments and racially- and/or culturallyinformed assumptions about the identities of both victims
and perpetrators”
Among the various forms of institutional racism I have had the opportunity to witness and discuss with
colleagues and activists in the German context, racial profiling and police violence stand out as two
distinct areas that require urgent attention. Both have featured in the treatment of activists who have
been engaged in demonstration and legal advocacy for clarity around how Oury Jalloh, a young man
who was legally resident in Germany and seeking asylum, burned to death in a holding cell in Dessau in
2005. The circumstances surrounding the particular case beg certain crucial questions regarding
institutional racism in the police force, most specifically his being detained and put into four-point
restraints and affixed to a mattress without being charged with a crime, [2] and the fact that this has
been legitimised by the regional courts. However, instead of assisting activists in discovering the
totality of the circumstances that lead to Jalloh’s death, the police and, to some extent, the judiciary
have treated the activists as threats to be managed rather than concerned citizens to be protected.
This is particularly true of the treatment of the Black activists involved, whether or not the intention of
the officers and judges involved. [3]
Activists regularly attending the Oury Jalloh trial and
related demonstrations have told me on a number of
occasions that Black members of the activist group
are specifically targeted in various ways in the context
of their involvement with demonstrations and
advocacy. This was clear to the activists on 7 January
2012, when, during a demonstration in Dessau
commemorating the seventh anniversary of Jalloh’s
death and the ongoing trial against one of the officers
implicated in his death, the police brutalised two of
22
the Black activists in the Oury Jalloh Intiative, both of whom were treated in hospital, one of whom
had been knocked unconscious and had to be kept in hospital for several days. The same two
members of the group were, on a prior occasion, asked for identification when driving from the
courthouse, whereas the other passengers in the car (both white) were not. These are examples that
can be viewed as racially–informed practices that, at the very least, disproportionately and unfairly
affect non-white people. It has the effect of intimidating activists, particularly racial minority activists,
who are made to feel most visible and most vulnerable.
Germany, as a society, has turned its gaze to the police at various points in time, but none so
poignantly identify institutional racism as the past decade, and specifically, the past year. The issue of
racialised police brutality has been an ongoing discussion for years, but the NSU case and the Oury
Jalloh trail and other cases have located institutional racism as occupying a significant position in the
relationship between the police and the German public. It remains to be seen how expediently the
German public can mobilise these observations into concrete policy initiatives to tackle institutional
racism. With any luck, Simsek and Jalloh, like Lawrence, will serve as crucial figures in the
transformation of their society and will not have died in vain.
[1] This included racially stereotyping Lawrence’s friend Duwayne Brooks, a co-victim of the attack and a witness
to the brutal murder, and the treatment of Brooks as a suspect rather than a victim. The Stephen Lawrence
Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, 1999, pg. 14–19.
[2] He was arrested for bothering city-employed park sanitation employees by asking them repeatedly to use
their telephones to make a phone call, and then was further cited resisting arrest, neither of which should result
in overnight incarceration and certainly not the use of four-point restraints.
[3] This is also captured in the extended discussions that resulted from the Macpherson Report. On page 25 of
the report, which highlights submissions by the MPS Black Police Association’s spokeseman, institutional racism
is described as effects rather than intention. “The term institutional racism should be understood to refer to the
way the institution or the organisation may systematically or repeatedly treat, or tend to treat, people
differentially because of their race. So, in effect, we are not talking about the individuals within the service who
may be unconscious as to the nature of what they are doing, but it is the net effect of what they do”.
The role of the police in addressing hate crime: The case of
the Police Service of Northern Ireland
By Gary Reid, Chief Inspector, Police Service of Northern Ireland Lisnasharragh
The Northern Ireland Police Service presents best practice
in its work on hate crime - in terms of training, legal and
psychological support to victims of racist crime,
cooperation with NGOs working in this field, etc.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) takes a victim orientated approach to hate crime. It is the
PSNI’s policy to accept without challenge the view of a victim or any other person that the crime was
23
motivated by hate on one of the defined grounds. A police officer cannot decide whether or not to
record or investigate a hate incident or crime because there appears to be no evidence to support a
perception. PSNI believes this approach sends out a strong message that police will treat victims of
hate crime seriously and will conduct thorough and objective investigations.
Presently the PSNI have six defined types of hate crime: sectarian, racist, homophobic, faith/religion,
disability and transphobic. Racism accounts for approximately 30 % of hate crime in Northern Ireland,
with sectarianism being the highest recorded hate crime at 60%. Hate crime in Northern Ireland is
approximately 1.6% of the overall crime rate.
The Police Service aims and objectives are to record, respond and investigate all reported hate
incidents in a consistent, robust, proactive and effective manner. We ensure that every reported hate
investigation is appropriately supervised. Whilst it is the responsibility of every police officer to deal
with hate crime, some officers receive additional training.
The Hate and Signal Crime
Officer’s
(HSCO)
role
is
maintained by those officers
based in Neighbourhood Policing
Units (NPU) in every police
district. The role includes hate incidents and hate crimes as well as monitoring hate signal incidents
and crimes that affect those in minority or vulnerable groupings. Currently PSNI have 86 HSCOs at the
rank of sergeant. Every victim of a hate incident is offered the assistance of a NPU officer carrying out
the Hate and Signal Crime role and provided with information relating to local statutory and voluntary
support agencies.
“It is the PSNI’s policy to accept without challenge the
view of a victim or any other person that the crime was
motivated by hate on one of the defined grounds”
The HSCOs currently attend a 5-day training course to help develop their investigative skills. This
training is further enhanced with the use of external partners giving bespoke training around diversity
issues.
Reviews are carried out for all hate crimes at 10 days and 30 days by the NPU sergeants and Inspectors
for their areas. In addition to this the NPU Inspector is required to contact the victim and seek their
views around the police investigation. Hate crimes are also randomly dip sampled by local police
supervisors and Headquarter’s Service Improvement Department.
NGOs
Independent Advisory Groups (IAG) provide independent advice on the development and review of
policy, procedure and practices of the police to ensure that the aims of policing with the community
are met and provide a safeguard against the service disadvantaging any section of the community
through lack of understanding, ignorance or mistaken beliefs.
Advisory groups can give advice about a range of issues. They can assist by offering a communitybased perspective on policing plans and crime and disorder strategies.
24
Advocacy Service
The PSNI funds an advocacy service for victims of hate crime.
There are two advocates that deal with racist crime. Their role is
to contact each victim and help signpost them to other services
such as legal advice, housing issues, heath and psychological
support. This is further supported by Victim Support Northern
Ireland who are partners with PSNI in the scheme.
The advocate will also help the victim around the police
investigation and will facilitate contact with the police. This is
designed to give the victim confidence in reporting hate crime to
the police. The advocates are also tasked with the role of
increasing reports of racist hate crime by 10% each year. This is
an attempt by the PSNI to help tackle the under reporting of hate
crime to the police. The advocates meet with police each month
to review the previous month’s hate crimes. This allows the
advocates the opportunity to update police of both good and bad
practice encountered during that period. This update then allows
the police to fast track the addressing of areas of concern by the victim.
Hate Incident Practical Action (HIPA)
The HIPA scheme is jointly funded by the PSNI and the Housing Executive for Northern Ireland. This
provides for practical help to victims who have been the subject of attacks either to their home or in
their home. The schemes provides locks and replaces broken windows at no cost to the victim. They
also receive personal attack alarms it they so require.
Legislation
Northern Ireland has no hate crime legislation but sentencing can be increased by the courts under the
following legislation: Criminal Justice (No2) Northern Ireland Order 2004 (NI Hate Crime Legislation).
This provides courts with powers to impose heavier sentences when an offence is aggravated by
hostility based on the victim’s actual or presumed religion, race, sexual orientation or disability.
NGO best practice in supporting victims of racist crime
By Jolena Flett, Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM)
The Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities presents
its work in providing support services to victims of race
hate crime, harassment and intimidation. They aim to
provide victims a safe and confidential environment to
speak about their experiences, and to ensure that victims
are fully informed of their rights and empowered to access
these.
25
(January 2010) Frank, a Black man from a non-EU country, is married to a local woman and has been
living in Northern Ireland for a number of years. He was alone and walking down a main road in Belfast
during the day. Two young white men began following him and being racially abusive. Frank did not
recognise the men and as there was no one about he took out his mobile and threatened to call the
police. The men ran up to him and knocked him to the ground. One man wrenched his arm behind his
back, dislocating his shoulder, and took the mobile. They then began hitting him until he passed out. A
local man was passing by and saw what was happening and was also attacked when he tried to
intervene. Frank woke up in hospital where the police took a statement. The injuries to his arm required
several surgeries and were so severe that he could no longer do his job and was dismissed. This caused
great personal distress and put a strain on the marriage. Frank came to us after his attack, suffering
from anxiety and posttraumatic stress and not knowing what to do next. He was afraid to walk in the
street for fear that he would see his attackers again. He was a fluent English speaker but had not heard
from the police and did not know what action they were taking or how to find out. He was frustrated
and felt that no one cared about him or his family. He was so frightened that he would be attacked
again he was thinking about leaving Northern Ireland.
Over the last ten years, in Northern Ireland, there has been a consistent occurrence of racist attacks
despite a relatively peaceful period in terms of the conflict. Recently, however, the sectarian violence
has begun to re-emerge, making vulnerable groups even more vulnerable. Northern Ireland’s recently
devolved Department of Justice (DOJ), as a new entity to tackling racism, is quickly trying to respond to
these trends and rapid demographic change. Civil society is also leading the debate on racism, and
these debates are leading to a willingness to achieve change. There can be no doubt that there has
been a great deal of work in policy development and recognition that there is need for a fundamental
change in how to respond to this issue, particularly regarding victims of hate crime. However, much of
this work seems to still be happening vertically within organisations of the Criminal Justice System and
not being approached in a way that will set a standard across the system. This is borne out in Northern
Ireland’s Criminal Justice Inspectorate’s report ‘Hate Crime: A follow-up inspection of the management
of hate crime by the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland’ (July 2010), which found that while
only four of the 19 recommendations were not achieved, they were “concerned that three years after
the report was published the Criminal Justice Board has only recently agreed a common definition of
what a hate crime is, and the development of a hate crime strategy is not on the agenda” (p. 18).
Hate crime has a particularly
devastating effect on its victims
over other types of crime.
Research has shown that even
‘low level’ incidents motivated by
hate, such as name calling, have the same traumatic effect as a physical assault that is not motivated
by hate (Iganski, P. and Lagou, S. (2009) ’How hate crimes hurt more: Evidence from the British Crime
Survey’, in P. Iganski (ed.) Hate Crime. The Consequences of Hate Crime, Westport CT: Praeger). By its
nature it is not merely committed against the immediate victim or their property but against the entire
community and eventually raises the feeling of insecurity. As a consequence, hate crimes revive old, or
serve to create new bias, prejudices and negative stereotyping of others. It also creates cycles of
mistrust and tension within communities and society as a whole. Moreover, the traditional view on
hate crime contains it within the context of criminality. There is little work done around linking this
issue with the greater social, political and economic contexts, principally the social attitudes of
communities towards foreigners or non-nationals. This gap means that victims often feel they can no
“NICEM’s work grew as a direct result of service users
reporting that they had nowhere to go for support and
advocacy after becoming a victim of hate crime”
26
longer remain in the community where the attack occurred, as they feel isolated from their neighbours
and other residents.
Since 2002 the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM) has provided regional support
services to victims of race hate crime, harassment and intimidation. This work grew as a direct result of
service users reporting that they had nowhere to go for support and advocacy after becoming a victim
of hate crime. This was further borne out in a research report commissioned by NICEM, “The Next
Stephen Lawrence? Racist Violence and Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland” (2006), about the
experience of victims in the Criminal Justice System of Northern Ireland. As there was no overarching
strategy or regional services that focused on this support, such as for domestic violence, there was
little recourse for victims experiencing the particular trauma suffered after a hate crime. To further
compound this, there was no funding available for a regional support service, as there was a lack of
understanding of the impact of hate crime and still a reluctance to acknowledge its prevalence in
Northern Ireland. Therefore, NICEM self-funded its service after the initial funding ended in 2003 until
2010, when it received funding to provide a wide range of advice and advocacy services.
The aim of the service is to provide victims a safe and
confidential environment to speak about their experiences. The
objective is to ensure that victims are fully informed of their
rights and options and empowered to access these. This is
achieved by offering a range of services to ensure that a victim’s
needs are met, including: risk assessments, help with making a
statement to the police, help with housing/rehousing through
liaison with the Housing Authority, help with making complaints,
help with referrals to counselling/well-being services, help with
completing compensation forms, help with negotiating with
employers or other interested parties. Additionally, we would
work in partnership with organisations, attend forums and
meetings, deliver training and work with government and
statutory agencies to raise awareness of hate crime and its
impact.
There is now more proactive positive work being done in this
area by a range of agencies. There has been forward movement in policy development within
statutory and government agencies regarding their response to hate crime. The best example of this is
the coordination and funding through the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) to provide
advocacy services to victims of hate crime. Through this initiative there is a support worker for LGBT,
Race and Disability victims of hate crime. The support workers sit within regional NGOs and ensure a
better service to victims from the PSNI through good communication, referral and accountability
mechanisms. Other strategic work is also being done by the DOJ to establish a third party reporting
system for hate crime victims to combat underreporting.
This momentum will now need to be maintained through training and by ensuring that this becomes
an important issue embedded within the ethos of the agencies within the Criminal Justice System. It is
also crucial that there is an overarching strategy for the Criminal Justice System and government to
guarantee that hate crime remains at the top of the agenda. This is the only way that victims of hate
crime will get the support they need to engage with and have confidence in their Criminal Justice
System.
27
Facing Facts: Training civil society organisations to make hate
crime visible
By Melissa Sonnino, Community Affairs Coordinator, CEJI - A Jewish Contribution to an
Inclusive Europe
The project ‘Facing Facts! - Make Hate Crime Visible’ aims
to support civil society organisations in making hate crime
visible to public authorities so that incidents perpetrated
on the basis of bias can no longer be denied or ignored.
Being attacked just because of who you are is unacceptable. What makes a hate crime more
deplorable than any other crime are the psychological consequences for the victims. Besides the
physical harm, a bias motivated crime is prejudicial to human dignity, since a victim is attacked due to
his/her identity or due to perpetrator’s perception of his/her identity. Being attacked on the basis of
our real or presumed identity (age, ‘race’, faith, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or
disability) also has an impact on those who are seen to be part of the same so-called ‘target group’ in
society, leaving more and more room for fear and anxiety.
Hate crime monitoring is a key element of guaranteeing victims’ rights. When reported, the hate
component of a crime must be recognised and correctly recorded by those who receive the complaint
- whether this is law enforcement agencies, the criminal justice system, NGOs or victim support
groups. Data collection is necessary to make governments accountable for the hate crime situation in
their countries and to ensure that adequate prevention and intervention measures are implemented.
The last EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) report shows a huge gap in hate crime data collection
across the EU . The lack of consistent and reliable data has a dramatic impact on the recognition of the
extent of the problem, thus also seriously increasing victim’s reluctance to report hate crimes and
incidents.
This generates a vicious cycle
whereby
a
dangerous
phenomenon such as the one of
hate crime is under-estimated and
victims’
expectations
that
something will be done when a
bias motivated crime occurs, are
drastically reduced. Where there is a lack of trust in institutions and law enforcement, Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs) play a key role in assisting victims of hate crimes, in filling the gaps left by
governments and in changing victims’ culture of reporting. This is why two years ago, CEJI - A Jewish
Contribution to an Inclusive Europe, in partnership with the Community Security Trust (CST – United
Kingdom), COC Netherlands (The Netherlands), Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israel (CIDI - The
Netherlands) and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association - European
region (ILGA Europe) initiated the project ‘Facing Facts! - Make Hate Crime Visible’, which aims to
“Where there is a lack of trust in institutions and law
enforcement, civil society organisations play a key role in
assisting victims of hate crimes, in filling the gaps left by
governments and in changing victims’ culture of
reporting”
28
support CSOs in making hate crime visible to public authorities so that incidents perpetrated on the
basis of bias can no longer be denied or ignored.
In only two years important results have been achieved in the framework of the Facing Facts project,
such as:



A Mapping Survey containing information on the monitoring practices of 81 organisations
across the EU
A set of Guidelines translated in six languages to provide CSOs with methodological advice on
how to collect data on hate incidents, how to verify and classify the collected data, and how to
report hate crime and hate-motivated incidents
The development of an innovative training methodology seeking to provide CSOs with the
skills and knowledge they need so as to develop a system through which they can effectively
monitor and report hate crime.
With 20 years’ experience in diversity education, CEJI considers
training an extraordinary tool for social transformation. Applying
our training philosophy to Facing Facts! was both the biggest
challenge and one of the major success factors of the project,
which gathered a multifaceted group of people and organisations
that worked together on this subject for the first time.
22 CSOs representatives have already been trained with the
Facing Facts training methodology last year, and are ready to
disseminate the training locally. The training was an opportunity
for participants coming from a variety of countries and
communities to share experiences and increase intergroup
solidarity. The most important lesson learnt from this first
training experience has been the recognition of the shared
responsibility toward the fight against any kind of hate crime.
The victim of an anti-Semitic motivated incident doesn’t differ
from the victim of an anti-Muslim or anti-Roma motivated crime.
The Train-the-Trainers aspect is a vital characteristic of the
Facing Facts project. With this approach, we aim to increase the
multiplier effect amongst CSOs in order to strengthen data collection, reporting and advocacy
processes. In addition, the train-the-trainer seminar paves the way for participants to branch out into
their communities and spread the knowledge of how to best monitor hate crimes.
By empowering CSOs to set up reliable and credible monitoring systems, Facing Facts also seeks to
improve the range of services provided to victims of hate crimes, planting the seeds for a systemic
change where bias motivated crime will be no longer ignored.
29