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