Category: Hate Crime

Does Hate Speech Provoke Hate Crimes?

Hate crime is on a rise ever since awareness regarding Freedom of speech have increased. Isn’t it ironic how the same platform that gives a voice to oppressors also gives a voice to predators? When we talk about Hate crime, we all accept that hate speech is one of the main reasons for it. Hiding under the umbrella of freedom of speech, there are hatemongers and racists that utilize the useful platform of freedom of speech to gain their personal objectives and spreading hate among society. Hate speech is one of the quagmires of our society that has done more damage than the others. However, where the agreement of an interrelation between hate speech and hate crime ends, is on the question of whether a well-known celebrity’s tweets or speeches really provoke hate crimes in people? One school of thought is convinced that hate crimes have increased significantly in Trump’s presidency due to is blatant views and harsh policies on other races and ethnicities; some people have their opinion that hate speech is on a rise because of the lack of check and balance on social media.

I stand with the view that hate speech provokes hate crimes. You cannot completely control hate crimes by banning hate speech, however, hate speech is a catalyst to hate crimes and feeds the likes of hatemongers and racists. Ban on hate speech helps to maintain a balance between different ethnicities and racial sects. However, an important question that arises here is how do we separate hate speech from freedom of speech? How do we get to know when someone is crossing limits and is potentially subject to harm someone else? Who is in charge of all this and how can hate speech be prevented/stopped? There are so many questions to answer and so many steps to take to prevent hate speech.

Furthermore, hate speech becomes popular because of some celebrity or public figure persons start delivering it against different religion race or ethnicity. Due to these things the warmongers or criminals felt provoke and start doing crimes according to many psychologists people want another person to blame their false actions, sometimes. Hate crimes increase against Muslims in many countries. They start spreading hate between different religions or ethnicity and sometimes they do brainwash other people. According to the BllombergOpinoin Karsten Muller and Schwarz, in March published a paper that attesting hate crimes towards Muslims especially increased in America counties by the usage of social media especially twitter following president Donald Trump’s election. Before the election, the hate crimes in these areas didn’t have a greater rate of crimes. Although social media played a great role in violence due to free speech which turns out to be a hate speech or criticism. I always believed that social media is a great way to express yourself and thoughts and you can also express your thoughts and feelings about another person or community. But some free speech appears to be a hate speech and negative criticism, according to Leonid Bershidsky, he writes in his article that “In the German study, anti-refugee posts on the Facebook page of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party appear to be catalyst for violence.” in other words Leonid claims, anti-refugee post or campaign on social media have a prominent hand in hate crimes and I also believe that social media sites produce some controversial issues too. According to Muller and Schwarz, they estimate that without the AfD Facebook posts, 13 percent less anti-refugee crimes would have happened. Through Facebook and internet unavailability, the rate of hate crimes gradually reduced.

On the other hand, America recognized and they looked up complete data of 26 years of Federal Bureau of Investigation that has published. They also examine country-level demographics and balloting patterns. As per the German study, Muller and Schwarz did the same research. Back then to Nazi-era atrocities to see where more hate crimes inclined because that kind of thing and they found that they aren’t in the co-relation with social media. Leonid believes that social media is not the only responsible for violence and crimes. On the one hand, Muller and Schwarz estimated that social media have an effect on hate crimes but on the other hand, the 26 years of FBI’s data shows that, back then social media or hate speeches are not the factor for violence or crimes. My own views are hate speeches plays a great role in the hate crimes, many criminals have short temper and they provoke by hate speech and do crimes based on that i.e, sometimes there are many jokes that some people offended by it or some just take it as a joke or sarcasm. The main question is how we identify that some post or speech is referred to as hate or free speech.

In addition, Donald Trump’s years of presidency the hate crimes inreases, as per new data from federal bureau investigation hate crimes surged in continues three years. According to editorial, some law enforcement authorities proclaimed “7,175 hate crimes in 2017, compared with 6,121 in 2016”. In other words the author of editorial is trying to say when the president of united states of America is changed, the hate crimes expands. In annually data shows that there is an increase in hate crimes and more than half percent shows that mostly based on different race or ethnicity. Also in San Francisco, more than half of crimes seemed close to these incidents. Some famous and public figure personalities illustrated a role in hate crimes including president Donald Trump. President trump used a social site to give controversial statements or messages whether its about anti-muslim, Mexican border or anti-immigrant. He created chaos and give power to white supremacists and groups based on hate to feel more satisfied in expressing their beliefs in actions.

In addition, Trumps is not responsible for what his supporters do. After when trump elect as a president the first incident go viral when a university student climed that trump’s supporters specifically white males pulled her hijab off and stole her wallet but after some days police stated that “the young lady had admitted she fabricated the story. This incident is no longer under investigation,’ (the Lafayette Police Department said in a press release). Likely one more incident occurred that a gay man was attacked by the trump’s supporters on the election night but the police department said that this is the false allegation and we don’t get any report or didn’t find a victim in any hospital of such incident. The author of Editor believes that trump’s bears some responsibility that his controversial messages may give wrong or hate signals to his supporters and they do crimes. But on the other hand, Ms. Elizebeth Nolan Brown demonstrate that Trump is not responsible what his supportes do and opposition makes false claims for some view on their social site or for the sake of some likes or favorites. My views are that everyone is responsible for their own action but sometimes the criminals need courage, that’s why figure persons should be well aware of his words and its consequences.

In conclusion, free speech matters because we can give awareness through free speech but it can also be used for the hate speech. The editorial brought up the strong point that some politician bear the responsibility what their word cause but on the other side the reason.com also brought up a great point that sometimes opposition makes false claims to defame other. There are so many questions generate who is the in charge to set what is hate speech and how government or law enforcement authorities regulate it?

Police Officers And Hate Crime

During my research, I will be focusing on an incident that had happened between a young black 18-year-old male and the chief of police in Bordentown, NJ that took place back in 2016 and is now going to trial. At this time there is a case going on against the chief of police in Bordentown who will be facing hate crime charges against the young 18-year-old teenager. Some may think that things such as hate crime do not happen especially from those in law enforcement. Crimes can happen anywhere no matter where you are from. Some crimes just aren’t reported. The purpose of this research is to allow people to see that anyone can commit hate crime not matter if you are law enforcement.

A hate crime is a common offense similar to murder, arson, and vandalism. The federal definition of a hate crime includes any offense that ‘attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person (Rose, 2018). The concept of hate crime came about in the United States in the late 1970s. But, by the end of the 20th-century laws have been passed by the federal government. In this research, I will talk about hate crime that happened in my town of Bordentown, NJ. I will be talking about an incident that happened back in 2016 between and African American male and the Cheif of police of Bordentown who is looked at as a racist.

Bordentown, NJ is a small town about 10 minutes away from Trenton, NJ. The town was incorporated on December 9th, 1825 as a borough and then reincorporated on April 3rd, 1867 as a city. Bordentown is about 8.5 square miles and has a population of 3,874 people. In the city, there is a population of 80.60% whites, 11.26% Black or African American, 4.11% Asians, 3.59% those who are two or more races, 0.31% other race and 0.13% American Indian and Alaska Naive. In the city, there have not been any major crimes committed. The violent crime rate is just 0 per 1,000 residents. However, the rate of property crimes is for example burglary, larceny, grand theft auto, and arson. Bordentown is a small town where not so many crimes are committed. In the past 10 years, no police officer has been charged with a federal hate crime.

According to CNN, on September 1 of 2016, Bordentown police were called to the Ramada Inn where Timothy Stroye (18 Years Old) and a 16-year-old female were swimming but did not pay for a room. The Ramada inn requires a person to book a room to be able to use the pool so because the young boy did not book a room he was trespassing. By that time Timothy and the 16-year-old female had already violated the hotel policies. According to the CNN report, the ramada inn called the police to have the young male and female removed from the premises. At the time of police arrival, the young man had been drinched from being in the pool and then a conrontation took place between the 18-year-old and police so then back up was called. Stroye was then pepper sparyed and handcuffed. According to the CNN post, the teenage girl’s aunt had been a witness to the encounter who othen screamed at the officers. After being handcuffed he then was escorted out the hotel where he then had his head slammed against a metal door jam. When arriving at the police station, Stroye was treated by EMT. But choose not to go to the hospital because he wanted to avoid delays in processing his case. In this case, Frank Nucera Jr, chief of police and business administration was the officer who attacked the young 18-year-old male. The supposed that the assault against 18year old Timothy Stroye was compelled by bias against African Americans.

According to CNN Lisa Rose, it is difficult to bring criminal deprivation of rights indictments against law enforcement because police have wide latitude to use force if they believe an individual is threatening public safety, whether the person is armed or not. With Nucera, prosecutors felt they had sufficient proof to convince a jury the now-retired chief used excessive and unreasonable force. Also, he was motivated by racial bias (Rose, 2018). When this incident occured it had not been a surprise to some, especially African Americans because this officer has been troubling the black community for some time now. In 2017, Nucera was charged with hate crime and was the first officer in 10years to be charged with the federal offense.

The incident between Nucera and the 18-year-old teenage male, it was known to be a significant history of racist behavior. In the past Nucera had been recorded before making racist remakes about the African American people. He referred to blacks with the N-word and before made it clear that he wouldn’t mind shooting them on a firing squad and using the police dogs on the force to intimidate them too. The decisions of the chief police officer made based on doing his job or is he really a racist.

The real question is: is this really a hate crime that took place? How much force has really be used against the young teen? According to CNN, The prosecutors have put out there that the police have been charged in hate crime. The first crime that had been committed was when the young girl and boy decided to go on the permissive without getting a room so they were trespassing. But was it worth it? Is it worth losing your job? Is it worth facing serious charges such as hate crime? Police officers are supposed to be here to protect.

In terms of my methodology, I will be using examples of the Eric Garder case. The Eric Garder case is a similar case to the Stroye case. Both African Americans males who were attacked by law enforcement. The only difference between the two is that one officer was charged with the crime the other was fired. I will be going around my neighborhood interviewing people and asking them questions about the case against the chief and has it affected the city at all. I will also be doing surveys to come to a conclusion as to what can be done to avoid a situation like this from happening again. Lastly, I will interview the police and get their inputs as to what has changed since the incident.

Hate Crime Against Minority Groups: Article Analysis

Criminological theories explain a wide range of criminal and deviant behaviour, where crime is and can be committed for a variety of reasons. Hate crimes, in particular, is a unique form of deviance in their own right, where the focus of the crime is on the meaning and impact of the offence itself (Perry, 2002). People who indulge in this form of crime are not gaining anything that is tangible or financially advantageous, their primary motive is to express their violent disapproval of another person’s particular race, beliefs, gender and in this case sexual orientations. Hate crime can be either felt or expressed through a number of ways, either through media or just personally. It is primarily directed toward one group from another group or it could be directed towards a particular individual because they are from that group. There is prejudice based on generalisations and/or assumptions that are made about the members in this group (Walter, 2011). Which lead to stereotyping, which they could have a negative effect on society, that particular group or on a micro level, a single individual.

Allport (1954) explains that mere prejudice can give proper conditions for aggression and violence but sexual orientations are not merely enough to lead groups or individuals to perform hate crimes against sexual minorities (Willard, 1954). Where people go about living their lives, the prejudice emerges when they funnel their negative beliefs through participating in social groups or political committees which are centred around the maintenance of the current social structure in regards to sexual orientation (Willard, 1954). These non-violent actions are acceptable behaviour within the current social and legal constructs, while still serving into the server disapproval of people’s sexualities which go against heteronormative beliefs.

Another type of group, are more openly violent with their disapproval, they rely on frequent direct violent acts on the LGBT community, in order to communicate their prejudice and to assert authority over this community. This group lack the utilization of political power, thus resorting to more traditional biases such as physical violence (Willard, 1954).

Homophobia is a term that is used for the general discomfort that one shows towards homosexuals or non-heterosexuals. Where an individual simply has a fear of other men or women who aren’t heterosexual, this then leads to a toll on those men who are considered less masculine (Herek, 2000).

Tajfel (1974) tries to understand intergroup discrimination, the theory behind this study was that each social group create a form of criteria that favour the inner group which come at an expense to the outer group. The theory outlines that for a group to positively differentiate themselves from the outer groups, the inner group put emphasis on their superiority in some valued dimension, like race, sex, religion or even sexual orientation (Tajfel, 1974). However, people do not belong to one set group, much rather multiple groups which then results in multiple social identities, thus our beliefs and morals a line with their relative inner group that they associate themselves with. Therefore, according to social identity theory, it is our desire and pursuit to separate ourselves from outer groups that lead to people participating in hate crimes against people from other groups (Tajfel, 1974).

Social identity theory explains the bias-motivated crimes, although this theory is showing great promise in explaining anti-gay hate crime, there are a few weaknesses that fail to explain why certain people do not choose sexual orientation as a reason for committing hate crimes. This theory fails to explain the reason why some other characteristics in which an inner group would differentiate themselves. Where an individual could decide to discriminate one outer group but not the other. Thus, making this theory rather general, the theory fails to explain why people decide to discriminate towards sexuality and not discriminate other outer group traits (Guittar, 2013).

Another theory that has been used to explain hate crimes is that of Merton’s (1968) strain theory, he argues that deviance is a result from an imbalance or ‘disequilibrium’ which rises from gaps between goals and the means of obtaining these goals in a legitimate manner (Merton, 1968). This theory explains that due to inequality in education, income or individual capacity, where they then simply are unable to obtain the goal that has been set by society. This resulting in stain placed upon individuals who desire these material chattels that are essential for one’s success. Due to the stress and pressure individuals turn to illegitimate ways of achieving that success that is set by society, one of these ways of achieving the materials and respect that allow an individual to aspire in social status is violence (Walter, 2011).

A study was done by Agnew (1992) expanded on the types of strain that impact the individual’s predisposition towards deviance. This relates to the relationships that are affected negatively with others infringe of the individual’s ability to obtain their valued social goal. Agnew argues that others may prevent an individual from achieving their desired goals, which are statues, monetary and autonomy goals. Thus feeling angry and frustrated with this circumstance that will lead to the individual in obtaining their goals in an illegitimate manner (Agnew, 1992). Agnew uses the example of negative relationships, which relate to minority groups such as the LGBT group, where there is a socio-economic instability in an individual’s life, where they may blame this instability on other groups. When minority groups start to move in new localities which are now through the eyes of the individual as an invasion their inner group’s territory. This then resonates fear in people already living in the area, that the newcomers will impose on their already unstable social and economic security, thus will impose on their valued goals. This then results in some individuals thinking negatively toward the newcomers for obtaining the goals that they feel aren’t there’s to obtain (Agnew, 1992). Resulting in minority groups becoming incriminated by the dominant members of society such as media and other influential platforms, blamed for socio-economic problems (Walter, 2011).

Fear is a dominating factor in this theory, where fear overcomes the dominant social group and their socio-economic security which fuel prejudice towards minority groups. Dominate groups strive to protect their social norms and beliefs, which give them social power. Thereby, giving them the power to suppress the groups that fail to fit with their norms or beliefs, because they fear they may lose their power and prosperity to this outer group (Walter, 2011). Therefore, the dominant group commit hate-related crime, which goes two ways, the first is where hate crime is used as a way to prevent the minority group (e.g. LGBT or racial minority) from climbing the socio-economic ladder, which then takes with them resources and power and that changes the way the dominant group live. This then brings upon the second type of hate crime, where the dominant group placing blame on the minority group as a means to justify the disequilibrium in the social structure (Young, 1999).

The limitation that this theory poses is that it cannot be linked to all kinds of hate crime. That it doesn’t explain socio-economic disadvantage to all hate crimes, while it’s accepted that most hate affiliated crime is those of disadvantaged individuals, stain theory cannot explain from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds. Where this could work understanding one type of hate crime but could be completely irrelevant to other types. Strain theory gives a great and in-depth understanding of the macro level of hate-related behaviour, however, lacks the understanding of why only some individuals commit hate crimes but those who are equally disadvantaged do not (Walter, 2011). Relying heavily on the fact that some take the strain more than others and that is why they commit hate related crime.

To conclude, this article explored two of the many theories that explain hate crime against minority groups such as LGBT. Social identity theory and strain theory, both present the different ways in which groups cultivate prejudice which develops into hate crime. Social identity theory outlines the differences between groups which lead to discrimination among one inner group to an outer group. Strain theory exhibits that dominate groups wanting to keep the socio-economic power, preventing the minority from climbing the socio-economic ladder, then blaming the minority for the imbalance in society. Both theories are sufficient in explaining why hate crime exists in society, they both have their limitations. While both exhibit great understanding of hate crime towards minorities, one is slightly more superior to the other. Stain theory explains hate crime at a better extent and greater depth than social identity theory. It provides a great understanding of the macro level of hate crime, as to why a society commits hate-related behaviour but relies too much on that, where it lacks the understanding as to why some individuals commit hate crimes and others who are in a same or similar situation do not commit hate crimes. The theory relies too heavily on the fact that some people take the strain more than others, however, this does not sufficiently close the gap between macro and micro. However, this theory can be improved upon and also improve society as a whole, where there should be more research on the micro level, bridging the gap between macro and micro. This will allow more scaled measurements is to why individuals commit a crime, also giving light on right over resources while also giving the ability to measure fear and threats that are posed by outer or minority group to dominate group’s traditions, norms and values (Walter, 2011). This will then allow criminologists to distinguish the groups that are exhibiting such behaviour with ease and can respond better to prejudice within society. These measurements could allow society to detect this deviance and also allow for it to be prevented, where there could be sufficient education within the community and resources allocated in preventing the strain within the groups. However, there will always be a strain in a group, dominate or otherwise, this method will most likely reduce the strain that is currently in society.

Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence As A Hate Crime

Introduction

Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence (TFSV) (Source A) and Misogyny as a Hate Crime (Source B) are two subjects widely discussed these days. The first Source A looks into Gender, Shame, and TFSV and the second Source B is a Parliamentary debate in the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament on considering Misogyny as a Hate Crime. TFSV refers to a range of practices where digital technologies are utilised to facilitate both virtual and face-to-face sexually based harms and Misogyny Hate Crime which is defined as ‘incidents against women that are inspired by the demeanour of men towards women and incorporates behaviour targeted at women by men simply because they are women. (BBC News, 2018). This essay will critically review and assess the differences in the approach which these sources have adopted and what the reasons are for these differences.

Source A is an article by Nicola Henry who is a Senior Lecturer in Lawful Examinations in the Department of Social Inquiry at La Trobe University in Melbourne (Australia). Her studies is centred around sexual violence and victimisation discourse in both international and domestic criminal justice domains and Anastasia Powell the co-writer is a Senior Lecturer in Legal Studies and a partner of the Centre for Applied Social Research (CASR) at RMIT University, Melbourne (Australia). She has interests in Policy and Prevention concerning violence against women, and in addition the job of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) in sexual violence, harassment, and hate speech. The subject of this article is to research on the impacts of Gender, Shame, and TFSV. Criminality in virtual reality has been the subject of much discussion since the 1990s, yet relatively little consideration has been paid to TFSV. This term is utilised by the authors to explain on the whole the extent of criminal and harmful sexually aggressive behaviours executed against women with the guide or use of new technologies.

Source A looks at past compositions and endeavours to build up a comprehension of Gender, Shame, and TFSV. The authors researches how Digital Communications Technologies have changed present day social orders, with significant effects both to our day to day life, and for ordinary crimes. Sexual Violence, which is an enormous human rights issue, has additionally changed in the computerised age. The aim of this article is to investigate the manners by which re-traditionalised gender hierarchies and disparities are showed in online settings, and to conceptualise the reason and impacts of TFSV as “embodied harms.’ Henry contends that tricky personality/body and on the web/disconnected dualisms result in an inability to get a handle on the one of a kind sort of typified hurts, blocking a sufficient comprehension and hypothesis of TFSV.

The authors analyse the current condition of learning on these diverse measurements, drawing on existing empirical studies while there is a developing group of research into technology-facilitated harms perpetrated against children and adolescents, there is a deficiency of subjective and quantitative research on TFSV against adults. Also, few of the current examinations give solid information on the nature, extension, and effects of TFSV. Primer investigations, however, demonstrate that a few harms, much like sexual violence all the more extensively, might be dominatingly gender, sexuality and age-based, with young women being overrepresented as victims in a few classifications. This study gathers the empirical evidence to date with respect to the commonness and sexual orientation based nature of TFSV against adults and talks about the suggestions for approach and projects, and additionally proposals for future research. Empirical research will give the establishments from which policy and legislative initiatives for prevention, penalty, and solution might be developed.

Source B reviewed in this essay is a debate in the parliament by Melanie Onn. Onn is a Member of Parliament (MP) for the Labour party and has been a MP for Great Grimsby since 2015. In March 2018, Onn recommended an adjustment in law which would see wolf-whistles and cat-calls be classified as hate crimes (Daly 2018). In light of feedback, she shielded her battle and said there was an issue in Grimsby identifying with mentalities towards women and relationships. Onn has begun battling for women’s rights and to consider Misogyny being recognised as a hate crime. Onn continues on campaign towards perceiving Misogyny as a Hate Crime, similarly as offences propelled by antagonistic vibe dependent on race, religion, Tran’s identity, sexual orientation or disability. The debate is tied in with anchoring an augmentation to the current hate crime definitions and condemning better to prevent violence against women, reinforce early intervention against lower-level events and give women more prominent trust in revealing the activities that, time and again, have turned into the backdrop of their lives. Source B puts the argument forward by explaining that there is definitely the situation as 85% of ladies aged somewhere in the range of 18 and 24 report that they have been forced to bear undesirable attention.

Onn clarifies that there is a power irregularity in the public eye that excessively influences ladies contrarily; therefore Onn has a solid contention by expressing misogyny ought to be a selective strand of hate crime. This allowed Onn to retain her control of the flow of the debate towards its expected point of supporting the Government’s proposals. Onn contends that creating a law on Misogyny a Hate Crime is a method for plainly expressing that. It is a method for defending men’s notoriety and men’s entitlement to be viewed as equivalent nationals as opposed to as predators in waiting by isolating inadmissible conduct and perceiving those men who misuse their power and strength. By categorising Sexual Harassment as a hate crime, we would change the discussion so it was not about what women need to do to evade it. But to make sure men know that it is not their given right to harass a woman. Making Misogyny a Hate Crime would enable us to change the discussion about men as much as it would enable us to guarantee that women are protected and by setting the definition in resolution, the Government would put down a marker to state that socially endemic negative demeanours towards women are not acceptable. The recording of the crime would give a clearer image of the size of the issue, help the Police in making a move and interceding, and give women more prominent certainty that their fears would be considered important.

While they both have similar subjects they have both been produced using a totally different approach. The key points are almost identical in the two pieces. Both have as their focal guideline on how women can be protected in actuality and in the digital world, as against its viability. However, there is a noteworthy distinction in the methodology adopted in each piece, as Source A draws on the exploration and discoveries of others in explaining of their contentions. Their account is discernible and accessible, yet additionally detailed and persuasive. The target audiences of the two sources are likely to be different. The readership for both sources is probably going to be scholastics, campaigners and politicians. For instance, Source A research can be utilised to put across to Ministers as evidence in favour to recognise Misogyny as a hate crime. Source B is to proclaim laws, regulations and guidelines by campaigning that Hate Crime law was intended to battle violations that deny equal respect and dignity to individuals who are viewed as other. The audience for Source B is the MPs, and where they are being persuaded to recognise Misogyny as a Hate Crime to protect women who experience the violence which is an outcome of sex inequality. In this way there isn’t much contrast between the two sources. Source A is composed in a scholastic shape and Source B is where the MP is attempting to campaign to the legislature to consider as the idea of provocation changes, so should the laws that oversee it, and such a large number of episodes don’t meet the criteria for Assault, Discrimination or Public Order offences. Therefore adopting Misogyny a Hate Crime which enables women to report any misogynistic act against her and not feel uncomfortable in reporting it.

Conclusion

The two sources have they own qualities on reporting the message on sexual violence.

Onn brings the tradition of parliamentary trades and the formal structure of the procedures and it appears in the debate and it obligation to the capacity of members to create and keep up radical casings that may be accustomed to carry new points of view into the discussion. While the passing of such a law might be a positive advance forward regarding perceiving the size of the issue, we should be reasonable about what this may mean for victims and the Criminal Justice System.

Hate Crimes in the USA Motivated by Religion, Racism and Vandalism

A familiar issue facing the United States of America is hate crimes. In the U.S. there have always been certain levels of racism and hate against what people see as different. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a government institution that tracks all the reported hate crimes in the United States, hate crime violence hit a sixteen-year high in the U.S.: There were 4,571 hate crimes against people. That means at least 4,571 people were discriminated against and harmed physically and/or mentally in 2018. (Donaghue “FBI: Hate Crimes . . . “)

According to the FBI, “A hate crime is a crime typically involving violence that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.” (ibid) In the U.S hate crimes are continuously increasing. While hate crimes motivated by race and religion are still prominent, hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation and gender are steadily increasing.

Hate crimes goes against what America is all about and the American dream. People want to live in America because of the freedoms we have and the “equality” here. They want to be treated as equals and have the freedoms that we as Americans share, and they should be able to. However, there are some Americans who don’t like anything that seems different to them and they treat those people that aren’t “normal” to them terribly. A hate crimes doesn’t necessarily need to include murder or attempting to hurt people, in fact, a lot of hate crimes include vandalism of the property or emotional damage. These might not seem as much of a problem as violent crimes, but it is still violating people’s rights as Americans and is morally incorrect.

With the rise of hate crimes in the United States, it is important to know about the different motivations behind them. Often, the motivation behind hate crimes is people being scared of what seems different or weird to them, like religions, sexual orientations, and race. By understanding the motivations behind hate crimes the FBI and other institutions can focus on educating people about the groups targeted in hate crimes and helping people to see they are nothing to be afraid of.

Hate Crimes Motivated By Religion

Many of the hate crimes in the U.S used to be against the Muslim religion and people of Islamic descent. Hate crimes against Muslims have been declining in recent years, but they still happen. The reason they used to occur so much more frequently is because of the attack on the United States of America on September 11, 2001. A terrorist group named al Qaeda used planes to take out the World Trade Centers in New York City. (Lopez: “A New FBI…”) The people in al Qaeda are from the Middle East, where the Muslim religion is prominent and there are a lot of Islamic people. After the attack, many United States citizens began to be afraid of Middle Eastern people and started to assume that everyone who looks or talks like they are from the Middle East were terrorists. A lot of people today are still scared of Muslims. I think a lot of Americans grow up with a fear of Muslims because their parents lived through the attack and cultivated an environment of hate against them.

However, some people are able to realize that just because someone is of Middle Eastern descent means they are automatically a terrorist or out to attack us. But there are some that continue to live in fear of Muslims and despise them. In 2001 there were 93 cases of hate crimes against Muslims, the total number of victims in these 93 attacks was 296 victims. The number of attacks against Muslims declined a lot in the next couple of years but in 2010 they started to increase and were higher for a couple of years. Then all of a sudden in 2015 and 2016 the number of hate crimes went way up. The number in 2015 went up to 91 from 56 in 2014. The number then climbed to 127 in 2016. In 2015 there were 120 victims in the attacks and in 2016 there were 144 victims. Those numbers weren’t anything compared to the 2001 victim count of 296 (Kishi: “Assaults Against Muslims…”) but it is still disgusting and terrible. There may be a slight fallacy in the data shown because not all hate crimes that happen get reported. But what we do know is what the FBI goes off of and we did our research with.

After a ton of research, the only reason I could find for the increase in crimes against Muslims is President Trump’s views on immigrants and the rhetoric he uses to describe the “invasion of immigrants” as he calls it. People had been hearing all of the negative comments President Trump made in the election process and it caused them to become riled up. (Lopez: “A New FBI…”

The fact that our own President’s election caused hate crime rates to go up is concerning. Trump doesn’t promote hate crimes but he does come across as racist. If even our country’s leader is discriminating against other races then it would make sense that we all have some racial prejudices. We need to focus on ourselves and not listen to what the media and politicians are saying, and we need to realize we are all equal.

An example of a foiled attack happened in Kansas: 3 men planned to bomb the apartment building where some Muslims from Somali were worshipping in a makeshift Mosque. They were stopped and turned in before they were able to carry out the plan. There is another incident where one California man had set fire to the Dur-Al-Quam Mosque on March 24, 2019 and no one caught him. But then a month later the same guy went to the Poway Synagogue with an assault rifle and opened fire on the congregation. He killed one person and injured 3. (Hate Crime Case…) There are many more stories like these. It is terrible and needs to stop. The fact that innocent people were murdered should make people realize how big of a problem hate crimes are and maybe we should all contribute to trying to stop them. The Muslim religion isn’t about terrorism. There are some terrorists that are Muslims but that doesn’t mean all of them are. America has a lot of legal, law-abiding Muslim citizens in our country and we need to respect them.

There are also hate crimes involving religions other than Muslim. One challenge I think that Morgan High faces is how the majority of students are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). I don’t think anyone at our school has done a hate crime involving LDS and non-LDS people, but the same principle with not judging applies. I think all of the LDS kids including me could do a little better at not right off the bat judging other kids if they aren’t LDS. If you just get to know the kids that seem different to you then you will most likely find out they aren’t that different after all.

Hate Crimes and The LGBT Community

One type of hate crime that is on the rise in hate crimes against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Community. I don’t necessarily agree with or support that lifestyle but I don’t go against it. I don’t really care about it, they can do as they want and it isn’t my place to judge them. But some other people in the United States feel otherwise. According to the FBI, there is an increasing number of hate crimes against LGBT. In 2018, 20.4% of the hate crimes in the U.S were against LGBT people. (It didn’t actually have a specific number I just added up anything to be considered LGBT and got 20.4%. But it is still accurate because I did the calculations and looked at all the categories.) “Crimes targeting the LGBT community increased by about 6% from 2017, and the FBI reports a significant increase in hate crimes motivated by gender identity bias.” There was a total of 184 hate crimes against LGBT in 2018. (Donaghue “FBI: Hate Crimes…”) The FBI reports that the highest targeted group is transgender women of color. They say that they are in the most danger because they fit two of the groups that are often targeted in hate crimes. Although they might be the highest targeted group they don’t have the most crimes against them. Gay men actually had the most hate crimes against them in 2018.

(Fitzsimons: “Nearly 1 in 5…”) There were over 1,300 hate crimes against the LGBT total. That is ridiculous, they should be free to do as they wish. People shouldn’t be judging them in the first place, then if they take it to the point of a hate crime that’s outrageous. The fact that people are taking their fear or hate of what is different to the point of committing crimes and some even murdering people isn’t right.

Racism and Hate Crimes

Another type of hate crimes is against other races. On November 4, 2019, a Milwaukee man threw acid onto a Latino man’s face; giving the man second-degree burns to his face. The victim’s name is Mahud Villalaz; he was born in Peru and he now is a legal U.S. citizen as of 2001. The attacker, Clifton Blackwell, accused Villalaz of invading the United States even though Mahud Villalaz has been an American citizen for years. He claimed that Mahud Villalaz “parked too close to the bus stop.” He yelled at Villalaz about how he was “invading his country and wasn’t obeying his countries laws.” Villalaz moved his truck trying to avoid a conflict but Blackwell continued to yell at him and insult him. Villalaz decided to confront Blackwell about it. He explained to Blackwell that it was as much his country as his. They continued to argue for a while when Blackwell suddenly pulled out a bottle of battery acid that he had for some reason and splashed it on him (police later found a lot of acid in Blackwell’s house). This was considered a hate crime by Milwaukee’s Mayor Tom Barrett. Clifton Blackwell will soon be sentenced.

This is one of the more serious hate crimes against people of other races or religions. The percentage of the number of hate crimes in the United States is going up every year,” here were 7,120 hate crime incidents involving 8,496 offenses” Said The United StatesDepartment of Justice. This is not good for the United States because if we push out people of other races it can cause bitterness from other places. Not all Americans are racist. Actually, a low percentage is racist. People need to realize that even though they are a different race, they are still humans and that they should be treated equally. People usually are racist because of the way that they were raised and the people that have influenced them. They have gone through the steps needed to become a citizen of the United States so they should be treated like every other United States Citizen, 13.7% of U.S. citizens are Foreign born. After the attack people have been scared to even go outside of their house, this shouldn’t be the case people should feel good about going outside, and feel safe, even if they are a different race they should be welcomed into our country. We need to make a greater need to make a bigger effort to stop racism and enforce bigger laws against it; so that people won’t be racist and that we can all feel safe. We can’t completely get rid of racism but we can try to decrease the number of crimes against people of other races.

Another incident happened on November 27, 2018, when a Utah man walked into a tire shop and hit 3 Mexicans with a metal pole and sent two of them into the hospital. He said that he wanted to kill some Mexicans and that they were invading our country and that they need to go back to where they came. The man was charged with violent hate crimes and was sent to prison. The two men that were sent to the hospital recovered. This could have been a lot worse than it was even though it was already a bad thing that happened. The man was super angry and they think that he was drunk when this incident happened. He claimed that the Mexican Mafia was after him. We aren’t able to actually confirm that he has dealt with the mafia before but he claims he was, Said USA Today. These 3 men weren’t at all affiliated with the Mexican Mafia but he attacked them anyway. In a later interview when he was explaining that he was in it with the Mafia he said: “they are all the same”. When he said this he was saying that all Mexican people are “bad people” or part of gangs and such. This was something that people should be trying to stop and preventing people from doing it. People were then scared to even go to the store because they thought that it could be a group of people trying to target people of other races. Even though there isn’t a large amount of violence towards people of different races we need to stop because it is bad and will make people mad.

Hate Crimes and Vandalism

Vandalism can also be considered a hate crime. People vandalize stuff And cause damage to other people’s stuff. The “Bean” in Chicago was vandalized on July 2, 2019. The boys were later arrested for their actions. People come from all over the world to see The Bean, so when people vandalize it, it will make people mad and some vandalism can never be undone, People need to respect what others have and know that they don’t have the right to go and ruin people stuff if they feel like it. Vandalism is bad and people need to stop it. It can make things look ugly and can decrease the value of a house or places in the area and not make people want to go there. People try to make vandalism seem better by saying “It’s just how people try to express themselves”. But people can express themselves in other ways that aren’t damaging things around them and that is safe for them that can’t express themselves. People who vandalize usually vandalize someone they hate so this is considered a hate crime.

Conclusion

The number and percentage of hate crimes in the United States are increasing and we need to make these numbers decrease; make a safe place for people to live where they feel like they can go do what they want. In our county we stand for being free, so when people dont feel free, its not a good thing. “59.6 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offenders’ bias against race/ethnicity/ancestry.20.6 percent were victimized because of bias against religion.15.8 percent were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation” said The FBI. The percentages keep going up and need to stop. We can help stop these numbers from going up by not Being racist and seeing everyone as a human and not diffrent.

Policing Of Online Hate Speech

The introduction of the internet brought about a new revolution of connectivity and communication, but along with accessibility of communication arose the simplicity to discriminate against individuals and large groups of people with the touch of a finger. Derogatory and inflammatory speech in the United States has technically been around since the country’s founding, but it was not classified as a hate crime until the expansion of the Hate Crime Laws in 2009. Though there has been debate over its potential conflict with the First Amendment, the line of criminality at which hate speech lies is where it begins to infringe on the rights of others. Policies have been put in place in the hopes of reducing the occurrence of this in the real world, but it is unclear on the correct manner with which to police online instances. Legislative actions that ban or criminalize online hate speech might be somewhat useful; however, filtering by the community and policies placed by networking sites would prove to be a more reliable source for stopping discrimination done through the internet. Policing this to a complete and just extent would either be an overstep of power or just not possible. Some suggest that the United States federal government has no business interfering with the internet realm since it is accessed internationally. This, of course, would make it more of an international issue rather than a national issue. Others would argue that it is no one’s business at all. These people believe that such interference would be an abuse of government power. In both cases, there is a fear that government intervention would give the United States too much power.

The first step in pushing back on bigots would be to ‘arm the public’ with the availability to identify and report hate speech. In Source A, Scott Rubin, an executive from Google and YouTube, states, “…we count on our community…to flag videos.” Mr. Rubin is referring to the authority they have given to their platform users to decide what they find offensive. Mr. Rubin and other Google executives understand the importance of making certain that both their subscribers and casual users feel safe in that community. YouTube and several other online media companies are combating hate speech by instilling discriminatory discretion with the public in the form of standardized guidelines. They advise these users to keep their content from being too controversial or indecent while at the same time suggesting that users report such content so that it can no longer persist in offending or oppressing other users. The mechanism of allowing all users to flag illicit content does not fully prevent the problem, but it is good at hiding inappropriate posts from viewing. In internet spaces where there is no option either to flag or to hide posts, some organizations and advocacy groups have taken the matter into their own hands by commenting directly on the original post to defend others (Source A). They make it their social responsibility to sift through thousands of comments and posts to isolate hate speech criminals even further. These examples illustrate that allowing other users to flag posts that they are offended by is more useful for getting the site to take it down. Since the United States is all about giving power to the people, this philosophy should not be a problem. As Source G points out, “…we should look for creating empathy.” A site that allows all to share their feelings in a justified manner ensures that everyone is heard clearly. Although when some speak their minds it may be offensive, the hurt can be combated with the same basic principle. Implementing ways for the community to fight back peacefully is key in taking down hate speech.

A more legalistic approach proves to be troubling in more specific cases. Germany’s new Network Enforcement Act, meant to protect internet users solely against hate speech, is starting to take down expressions of opinions, and “…the law is achieving the opposite of what it intended” (Source B). The Network Enforcement Act was put in place to protect those with a pure voice and punish those with a nefarious voice, but it seems as if the line between them is often blurred by the artificial intelligence filter. On top of this, law enforcement could potentially view any deleted posts as destruction of evidence, putting the social media companies at risk of running afoul of the law. It’s the very definition of a Catch-22: the media company might just be trying to keep other people from being hurt by the post, but the German government needs the post to prove guilt. Other parts of this act give over too much control to the private business owners instead of the people. To restate a previous claim, the social media companies must assist in allowing the public to decide what is and what is not hate speech. The problem with this act in particular does not bode well for any similar legal plans to be made in the United States in the future, especially with our generally more conservative populace. Source C outlines an instance in which bans and suspensions from a network site improved the community and lessened hate speech. This solution might open up new job positions and improve the site’s well being. However, those in charge of the post-flagging and time-outs work for the company and can place an account on ban for any reason they please, even if it is just an expressed opinion that the individual happens to agree with. This does not seem completely fair to all of the users since their security can be upheld or denied by bias. While there can be some result in restrictive policies, the overall outcome does not guarantee freedom of opinion. The acts of the legislature in Germany and the Reddit bans demonstrate why this legalistic approach is not just unhelpful but infringing.

In order to fully police online hate speech at a court level, strict policies and laws would have to be put in place that would diminish the freedom that is the internet, and that’s only in the United States. According to Source F, “some 11,500 sites [are] devoted to discriminating against groups of people.” Any United States law put into place would not be capable of fully criminalizing domains that permit or encourage hate speech. At best they, could only stop viewers from seeing the content. Most other countries would have to follow suit to make any kind of drastic difference. But if these privately owned sites can not be criminalized, and they will not be affected by the other solutions previously mentioned, then what can be done? Well, maybe nothing. There are two major areas where hate speech occurs: social media and private blogging sites. Social media could be looked at as unavoidable since platforms like Facebook and Instagram are so widespread, but private blogs that are meant to discriminate do not even have to be clicked on. The only thing that could be done without restricting their freedoms would be to have search engine sites tack on a disclaimer to the URL or link that clarifies the intention of the blog. “The way to combat hate speech…is…to contest it” (Source D). Another solution would be to create uplifting sites of the opposite matter to overshadow the hate sites. This wouldn’t necessarily punish the other site owners, but it would outshine the hate. Every citizen deserves their freedom, on- or offline, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people. As we have seen in Germany, laws might only worsen the problem.

Hate speech is a widespread issue with no firm, end-all solution to the problem. Source E demonstrates that 55 percent of adults who have experienced harassment that includes severe behaviors think the government needs to do more about it. Of those surveyed that have had no previous experience with harassment, 33 percent also believed that it was not taken seriously enough. Though we have seen that it would not be possible to enforce, these responses still demonstrate the extent of the issue. This goes to show how upsetting it is that people are being attacked with no real justification.

The only viable solution immediately available to society is for each citizen, every time he or she interacts on the internet, to keep an eye out for any particularly alarming posts or comments and flag or report them. In some cases, if especially severe or persistent, citizens should report the user of origin to further prevent any more one-sided discrimination. Also, being kind to others, especially on the internet, and never partaking in any kind of hate activity will begin to have a positive cumulative effect. The only way to fight hate is with kindness. Internet users who don’t find themselves in those types of situations often can still help put an end to this issue by continuing to spread awareness.

How extensively does hate speech actually hurt the population? As shown in Source F, there are thousands of sites dedicated to discriminating and targeting others. For perspective, there are 4.5 billion unique internet users as of 2019. This just shows how many people could be potentially affected by these sites. This source does not even mention the amount of hate posts or comments made on other social media sites which may affect even more individuals. Targeted groups and individuals are massively affected by this type of speech, but there is not much that can be done effectively through the force of law.

Hate Crime Research Paper

Four Jewish teens were attacked and robbed by a group of teens On November 11, 2018, while walking near Fairholme Avenue and Bathurst Street in Toronto. Sunday when they passed another group of teens, the boys were subject to offensive remarks about their religion, and they were made fun of based on what they were wearing. According to the police spokesperson Katrina Arrogante the boys were wearing their makes on their heads. The police spokesperson reported she was not sure what their basic outfit was, but that the comment that was being made to them and that the assault occurred. The boys were punched and kicked at least once and a pair of sunglasses was stolen from one of the victims. Minor injuries were sustained; some injury to the face and some bruising to the lower body and they were treated on scene. One of the boys said, “ as a Jew and as a religious Jew, as an observant Jew in Canada, which officially accepts all religions, all races, everybody, to be attacked physically just because I’m a minority as a thing that should have been of history, it happened once, it shouldn’t happen again”.

This is significant because it shows us that even though we claim that everyone is free to practice their religious belief without being discriminated against, some group is still attacked for their religions and also this case also help us do more about hate crime because not just the event for the past, but it still happening in the present time. By using this case study, will try to show harmless people can be assaulted because of their religion’s practices and traditions. I will also try to show that victims are not only people that get the effect of the hate crime committed against them, but the whole community gets the effect.

Definition of the problem

Hate crimes include incidents in which the perpetrator aims at a certain victim because the victim belongs to a particular group. Mostly, hate crime victims are members of minority racial groups, or religions, or have a different sexual orientation (Miller, Alexandra J, 2001). There is no fixed definition of what creates a hate crime. Rather, each organization and government agency uses a different basis when defining an incident as a hate crime. For example, there is no specific definition of hate crime in Canadian law. In fact, any crime can be qualified as a hate crime if the prosecutors can convince beyond reasonable doubt that hatred was an aggravating factor that propel crime, this only comes to play at sentencing, but Canada’s criminal code does have legislation against hate propaganda in section 318,319. Which prohibits the willful promotion of hatred towards an “identifiable group” which is outstanding by color, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

Anti-Defamation (1997) suggested that hate crime victims are people who have a crime committed against them because of their “race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender. Police-report hate crimes (2017) refer to criminal incidents that at the time of investigation, police found that the crime has been motivated by hatred toward an identifiable group. An incident may be against a person or property and may aim at race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, language, sex, race, age, or mental or physical disability, among other factors.

Hence, the real crime committed is not what decides whether the incident is classified as a hate crime. Rather, the victim’s inclusion in a particularly protected group is the key to whether the incident becomes categorized as a hate crime and if hatred was an aggravating factor that motivated the crime. Hate crimes are not recent incidents. The Roman persecution of the Christian and German Nazi’s “final solution” for the Jewish people is a form of hate crime (Petrosino,1999). Jews were the most likely religious member to be the target of hate crimes.

Literature Review

It is important to know that hate crime does not only have an impact on the victim but has an impact on the whole community to which the victim belongs. The injury and the message extend to the community the victim belongs. For example, the attack on Jewish teens was meant to send the message to all Jewish people that they are welcome in the community. A crime motivated by faith also includes more attacks against one person’s system of beliefs. In other words, a religious hate crime perpetrator does not just attack a person- he or she attacks a religion, a way of life, and even a whole community. The pain spawned by hate crimes extends beyond the individual to the primary victim’s group or community in the Winder neighborhood community who knows the victim or hears of his or her experience (Mohamad Al-Hakim and Susan Dimock, 2012). In addition, a religious hate crime may well cause repetitive acts of violence among groups/ or individuals with various beliefs (Mokhtar B Barka, 2006).

According to the survey conducted by Dr. Perry and Dr. Alvi when they ask the participant how they think hate and bias incidents alter the target community most of them said that they felt fear; makes them hard to trust the other groups; makes them feel unsafe (Perry and Alvi, 2011). Hate crime has a huge social impact on the target community. hate crime makes the group to which the victim belongs feel equally vulnerable to victimization and fearful. In this situation, the members of vulnerable communities can read the intended message. With no doubt, this makes them doubtful about their place in the community and does leave them feeling less worthy than the probable offender (Perry and Alvi, 2011). Hate crime is an act of violence and coercion directed towards the unified winder community whom the victim is perceived to represent. As such hate crimes represent the natural relationship of dominance and deficiency within the bounds of structural norms and are intended to send a message to the victim’s community that they are different and they don’t belong in that community (Chakraborti and Garland, 2012).

The extremist literature accuses Jews of economic suffering, socialism, unfaithfulness to America, and encouraging other minorities to mix marriage and other anticipated in the abduction of white power. At times, the literature even accuses Jews of being the spawn of Satan. It claimed that a Jewish scheme runs the country’s and the world’s media, banks, businesses, and governments (Phyllis B Gerstenfeld, 2011, P.179). Because of the things extremists accused Jew people of now, most people see the Jew people as enemies and this leaves them vulnerable to attack and being victims of hate crimes.

Phyllis B Gerstenfeld (2011) suggested that many people hated Jews for so long due to what has been shown on the Aryan Nations Web site (www.aryan-nations.org), for example, the website has displayed an animation listing many historical examples of Jews having been “ banned, deported, executed, expelled, persecuted, and slaughtered”, with suggestions that these practices must be used against the Jews worldwide in the 21st century. Some people and groups are still following that suggestion today and that’s why Jewish people are still attacked in today’s world (P 181).

Since corresponding data become accessible in 2009, the number of police-report hate crimes has ranged from a low of 1,167 incidents in 2013 to a high of 2,073 in 2017. Regardless of the large increase, hate crime in 2017 depicted a small portion of overall crime at 0.1% of more than 1.9 million non-traffic crimes reported by police services that year. Police data on hate-motivated crimes contain only those incidents that come to the attention of police services and rely upon the police services’ level of skills in analyzing crimes motivated by hate. As a result, an increase in the number may be connected to more reporting by the public or after an intense sensitivity high profile events / or a result of a real increase in the extent of hate crimes being committed. As with other crimes, self-reported data provides another way to observe hate-motivated crime (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2018). According to the 2014 General Social Survey on Canadians’ Safety (Victimization), Canadians self-reported being victims of over 330,000 criminal incidents they recognized as being motivated by hate 5% of total self-reported incidents, and two-thirds of these incidents were not reported to the police.

Among the province, the extreme increase in the long-term number of police-reported hate crimes was noticed in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, where incidents increase from 612 in 2016 to 1, 023 in 2017(+ 67%). This increase was mostly tied to more hate crimes aimed at the Muslim 207%, Black 84%, and Jewish 41% populations (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2018).

Hate crimes against religion accounted for 41% of all hate crimes in Canada in 2017 and the number of such hate crimes was up significantly from 2016. There were 842 hate crimes targeting religious groups in 2017, up 83% from the previous year. Hate crimes against the Jewish population increased for the second consecutive year, rising from 221 in 2016 to 360 in 2017. Hate crimes targeting the Jewish population accounted for 18% of all hate crimes in Canada. Ontario reported 61 more incidents, while British Columbia reported an increase of 54 in 2016 (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2018).

Hate crime statutes with provisions for penalty improvement execute by most states and with many covering religion, sexual orientation, and gender. No one charged with a hate crime but hate crime can be added at sentencing as aggravating factors under the criminal code of Canada section 718.2 (a) (i) if the prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national, or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any similar factor. a. A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offense or the offender, and limiting the generality of the foregoing (Mohamad Al-Hakim and Susan Dimock, 2012).

Theoretical Framework

“Until we are able, as culture, to celebrate difference rather than denigrate it, until we dismantle those boundaries, we will continue to force people into rigid categories of male/ female, straight/ gay, white/not white, normal/ deviant often through violence. We must begin to think of and enact difference differently” (B Perry 2001, p 226).

We need to come up with an approach that would help people think about differences differently such as public accountability, education, and building partnerships with communities. Most of the time why people have a bias against differences because they do not have knowledge or the little knowledge they have are from misinformation.

Public accountability: we must implement legislation that, in fact, adds to discriminatory violence, wreck legislation intended to challenge hate crime; and exclusive legislation that differently protects communities (B Perry, 2016). Put stress on the role the state hyperbole and policy play in increasing negative images and perceptions of minority groups. For example, President Trump said he would a build wall on the border of Mexico and the U.S to stop them from coming into the country that sends a message that Mexicans are not welcome in America and that would leave them more vulnerable to hate crimes or violence and extremes group would take that as permission for them to mistreat Mexicans are in America already. Holding authorities accountable for preventing and countering hate by investing for all stakeholders. Investing in police training on how to recognize hate crimes and how to report them since they are first responded it’s important that they know how to recognize hate, and they also need to train on diversity, equality, and inclusion (B Perry, 2016). Most of the hate crime incidents are not reported because the victim was from a minority group. More educated officers should be hired and once get hired they need to be immersed in the values that mitigate against apathy or outright hostility toward difference.

Education: To extend individual knowledge and skills, it’s important to look at programs and practices that are focusing on specific individuals and groups who are at risk, providing skills and knowledge that would help protect them from harm. The key area is to emphasize empowering and strengthening individual capacities to make sense of and confront hostility directed their way. Hate is so commonplace and bland that it is almost impossible for those outside the vulnerable communities to fully acknowledge its weight or to recognize it as a terror in our society as a whole. When the public lack cultural awareness and understanding of difference, this contribute to exclusion, victimization, fear, and tolerance of hate crime (B Perry 2016). So, it’s important to educate people in the community such as teachers, social workers, and criminal justice personnel about the weight and recognize the terror of hate crime in our society. Things like social media initiatives should rise alongside more traditional public awareness campaigns directed towards downsizing bias and related acts of harassment and violence, also create campaigns that primarily target the youth audience to oppose hate crime and prejudice among youth.

Police partnership with communities: building partnerships with minority groups and their community would help them feel welcome and included. For example, the liaison case study that was conducted in Ottawa by the police in challenging the boundaries of the citizenship administration to better make room for the interests of the LGBT individual turn out to be successful, as a result of the partnership with LGBT individual and their community organization has been working together to the definition of crime and safety that correlate to the LGBT communities definition of violence or hate crime (Ann-Marie Field, 2007). The key was the challenge of the citizenship barrier and minimum level of safety to allow LGBT people to enjoy the benefits of citizenship and contribute to the political community. The engagement of the police was a strong way of police being responsible for the community. The partnership made it easier for the community and the police to discuss issues that affect the community, share information about hate crimes, and discuss improving the safety of the community. This approach can be used with any group or community and I wish every city in Canada would follow this approach. I believe that if the police have a good relationship with minority communities many hate crimes would be reported and some of the groups would be less vulnerable to hate crimes.

Analysis of the Case Study

These case studies make clear that the victim had not committed a crime or hurt anyone, and yet they were attacked because of their religious beliefs. The Jewish teens were chosen at the prudence of their attackers who happened to condemn or not understand their specific faith beliefs. Cultural stereotypes and bias help extremist groups whose members are to be saved. This path to the social and political world results in a hostile and highly fateful discourse. Studying this case closely one can see how any believer, regardless of his or her doctrine, can be a victim of a religious hate crime. Putting it another way there is no one safe or hate crime free religion.

Mostly driven by the prejudices and biases of hate crime perpetrators, falling victim to religious hate crime is therefore religiously non-discriminatory. These cases also show that attitude played a major role in deciding on the victims. The Jewish teens were attacked because they were seen to be different in some culturally obvious way. The offenders of violence do not care who their victim really is, nor do they train to prey on individuals or groups of individuals. One of the main issues is the lack of specialization among haters is the identity of victims: if they can’t find someone Black to attack, they will go after someone gay. If they can not find someone gay, they will go for someone who is Jewish, Muslim, or disabled.

The above mention example shows that a crime motivated by faith also involves more attacks against one-person system beliefs. In other words, a religious hate crime offender doesn’t just attack a person, but he or she attacks a religion, a way of life, and even a whole community. In this respect it may be said that hate crimes work like terrorism; although there may be only one victim, hate crime target and threaten an entire community. for example, if a Jewish person is attacked because he or she is a Jew, a threatening message is sent to the entire community; it is like saying if we find a Jew, we will attack them.

Furthermore, a religious hate crime may well cause dangerous seasonal acts of violence among groups and individuals with different beliefs. Unlike disability hate crimes which are single-bias incidents, offenses based on bias against religion are in most cases more than one bias crimes, given that religion and ethnicity, which may include both race and nationality turn to overlay. Making a distinction between religious hate crimes and ethnically motivated incidents it is particularly difficult.

Current Responses

The case received a few responses from different sources. Police respond to the case and they said the incident would be investigated as a hate crime. Police didn’t give enough information on the case but maybe because the party involved were teens and maybe the police didn’t want to against the youth justice system. The police also reported that one of the suspects who attacked the Jewish boy was arrested and charged with assault and robbery. since then I have never seen or heard anything about this case not sure if the police still investigating it or if they have stopped.

The major of Toronto John Tory also responded to this case saying, “No one should ever be attacked for their religion.” Toronto major Tory also tweeted about the incident and called on the public to help the police to solve this hate crime/robbery investigation.

Federal Conservative and Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer tweeted: “Troubling to hear of the attack on Jewish teens in Toronto. Anti-Semitism will never be tolerated, and I hope the culprits of this hate crime will be swiftly brought to justice.” Premier Doug Ford added: “There is no place in Ontario for anti-Semitism and our government will not tolerate hatred of any kind.”

Toronto Sun reported that “The right to remain silent was likely never intended to apply to the prime minister after an alleged anti-Semitic hate attack in the heart of a Jewish neighborhood in Toronto”. Some are articulate and worried about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s lack of disapproval, or even comment, on the frightening alleged hate attack on four Hasidic teenage boys who were hit with fists, boots, and racial smear, which included being told: “Hitler is coming back.”

Jewish Defence League Canadian Chapter National Director Meir Weinstein said it “sends” a terrible message. “I am very disappointed that the PM has remained silent regarding the recent violent, anti-Semitic attack against Jewish teens in Toronto,” said Weinstein. “The lack of response seems to be a double standard. I remember the reaction of the PM regarding the young Islamic girl who falsely claimed that her Hijab was cut in a racist attack.” This makes Jewish people feel like they are not welcome when the people in power do not respond to the incident the same way, they respond to another incident.

In my opinion, everyone was on board in condemning this kind of act and violent and making clear that it is not tolerated in Toronto but the luck of a response sent from the Prime Mister send a very bad message, and since his been commending to other incidents that related to hate crime or off that nature. But overall, I believe the incident received an appropriate response.

Future Implications

As the police- report hate crime data show that the number of hate crimes has risen in the past years. Their number doesn’t seem to be decreasing because Canada has racial, ethnic, and religious. Canada’s population has become more distinct as the portion of Canada of Canadians who report being foreign-born, non-Christian, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or in a same-sex relationship continues to grow. For example, one-fifth of Canada’s population was foreign- born in 2016 and by 2036, this could range from 24.5% to 30%. With this increase in diversity, we should start educating people about diversity and how to accept differences.

Still, the fight against hate crimes is required and demands the attention of every citizen. For the program and service, it means finding a way to implement a program that would fight against hate and provide services to victims of hate crimes. For legislation, it means improving laws to address the serious terror of hate crime and also passing legislation that would allow the offender of hate to be charged with hate and not just consider hate crimes as aggravating factors at sentencing. For educators, it means finding a way to open channels of cultural understanding among children. In other words, teaching children about diversity and inclusion. For police, it means increasing attention to acts of hate and violence. For neighborhoods, it means reinforcing the bonds of community to embrace diversity and reject acts of discrimination.

Future researchers should be more research on religious hate crimes. There has been more research done on sexual orientation, identity, and expression, but there are a few types of research on religion, and future researchers should also focus on the impact of hate crime on the community to which the victim belongs.

Reference

1. Al-Hakim, M. & Dimock, S. (2012). Hate as an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing. New Criminal Law Review, 15(4): 572-611.
2. Anti-Defamation league. (1997). Hate crime laws. New York: Anti-Defamation League.
3. Barka, M. (2006). Religion, Religious Fanaticism and Hate Crimes in the United States. Revue Française D’études Américaines, (110), 107-121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/stable/20875714
4. Chakraborti, N. & Garland, J. (2012). Reconceptualizing hate crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and ‘difference’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 499-514.
5. Department of Justice. (2016, August 5). A Review of the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing in Sections 718-718.21 of the Criminal Code. Retrieved from https://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/rppss-eodpa/index.html
6. Field, A. (2007). Counter-hegemonic citizenship: LGBT communities and the politics of hate crimes in Canada. Citizenship Studies, 11(3): 247-262.
7. Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2011). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
8. Miller A.J. Am J Crim Just (2001) 25: 293. https://doi-org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/10.1007/BF02886852
9. Police- reported hate crime 2017. (2018, November 29). Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/181129/dq181129a-eng.pdf
10. Perry, B. & Alvi, S. (2011). ‘We are all vulnerable.’: The terrorism effects of hate crime. International Review of Victimology, 18(1): 57-71.
11. Perry, B. (2016). Intervening globally: Confronting hate across the world. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6): 590-609.
12. Perry, B. (2001). In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes. London, England: Routledge.
13. PETROSINO, C. (1999). Connecting the Past to the Future: Hate Crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(1), 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986299015001003

Should Hate Crime Be Punished Severely: Essay

Gender plays in multiculturalism as part of the questions discussed in the class. Sexual discrimination is a serious problem that exists in American society. I interviewed my roommate Samantha (she wanted to remain anonymous so I will use an alias) to discuss this topic, and she is half-Hispanic and half-Native American. Samantha’s parents are both from Mexico, and they moved to the States and became citizens before Samantha was born. First of all, she talks about what certain conditions have to be met for her parents to agree with her marriage and what restrictions she has to follow to agree with them. Secondly, she explains why her mother was opposed to what she wanted to do and when she decided to be majoring in Engineering. Thirdly, Samantha describes how religion affects her life and plays unequally when she talks about gender. Lastly, she describes women’s hate crimes in Mexico and how that affects multiculturalism. Based on the research and the interview that I conducted, the question “multiculturalism is bad for women?” is still an ongoing dilemma in our society today.

One of the examples that shows the inequality of gender that Samantha has been through is marriage. Her mother always forced her to get married to a White man who had blue color eyes, whereas her brother could go on a date with or marry someone he loved. Her race is Hispanic, but her appearance is different from the Hispanic people that we typically think of. She has blue eyes, a lighter skin color than White people, light brown hair color, and Native American bone structure. Her mother said that she could only marry a white man with blue eyes so that she could pass their genes to her children. Samantha says it is up to her to decide whom she wants to get married, and regardless of eye color, she wants to find someone with whom she can truly love and share her life. Nevertheless, her mother thinks that it is important and an acceptable reason why Samantha should listen to her. She says her younger sister is dating someone who is Mexican, but it is okay to do so, and her mother also agrees to do so since he looks White and has a blue-greenish eye color.

Samantha is a transfer student at UCSD and majoring in an engineering major. At first, her mother wanted Samantha to be a lawyer which was her dream job, but she could not do so because of her father’s opposition. Before she transferred to UCSD, she asked Samantha to do a part-time job in a lawyer’s office during summer vacation and found out that she never wanted to become a lawyer, and this was not meant for her. In her community college, she fell in love with physics and decided to be an engineer as many of her uncles are. When Samantha told this to her parents, they were against her decision because there are few female students in engineering majors, and it is demanding work for women when getting a job. Regardless of her ability and decision, they did not want her to become an engineer just because she was a woman. Her brother, on the other hand, encouraged him to become an engineer in the future and be proud of him that he will. Another story that Samantha shares is the sport. She used to play soccer when she was young, and she enjoyed playing it. As soon as her younger brother was born, her parents stopped her playing soccer and let him continue to play. They told her it was an expensive sport and they could not afford both of them to play, so she had to quit. After that, one of her aunts wanted her to participate in a cheerleading team at her school but she refused it. Until now her aunt is displeased with the fact that she is not one of the cheerleaders, in the past, she thought Samantha was a cheerleader and when she found out that she was not, she never treated Samantha the same way as she would be if she was a cheerleader.

This goes for her younger sister also. Her major is psychology and wants to become a police officer or an agent for the FBI. Their parents are worried that she has to get involved with the military. Women soldiers are seriously exposed to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military which is one of the most serious cases of violence involved in women’s life. Sexual harassment and sexual assault of American women in the workplace are very common. According to a 2018 report released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agencies received 7,609 sexual harassment charges. Given that many victims are unable to file complaints for various reasons, it is estimated that there will be more cases of women being sexually harassed and sexually assaulted.

One of the rules that she has to follow is religion. Her family is Catholic, and she always has been told to marry someone who is also Catholic and have a wedding ceremony at a specific church that she goes to. Her mother would not accept to have a marriage if he did not practice Catholic, but Samantha thinks that the way her mother wants is different from hers. She says as long as he can understand and feel comfortable with her religion even though he is not Catholic, she can still have a relationship and religion is not very important to consider when it comes to a marriage. It is one of the problems in our society that women are facing today. Women are not free to live their lives and one of the factors that determine our own decisions. Religion is one of the factors that oppressed women for a long time, where women are told to keep their virginity until they get married, women should be dressed in formal attire, and follow the patriarchal tradition. In the article “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” by Susan Moller Okin, she says “—common in much of Latin America, rural South East Asia and parts of West Africa—of encouraging or even requiring a rape victim to marry the rapist. … rapists are legally exonerated if they marry or (in some cases) even offer to marry their victims”. Most men think that when women lost their virginity, they are used items, and sinful, and by marrying rapist, women can at least have their husbands with this law.

On average, 10 women are killed every day in Mexico which makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the world. There are many reasons for this hate crime, but first of all, it is mainly due to poor punishment. The prosecution makes an unfair conclusion from the stage of investigation for such reasons as corruption and lack of investigative manpower. Therefore, they are often not even prosecuted. This applies equally to hate crimes as well as the rest of the crimes in Mexico. With no fair punishment, criminals tend to ignore the law, resulting in a further increase in the crime rate. Hate crimes are not solved by the efforts of either gender alone or are improved when all members are united.

The recent hate crime towards women happened in Mexico is about a Mexican woman who claimed her husband tried to kill her and was killed by him shortly about 3 weeks after the court released her husband, which sparked a frenzy in Mexico. According to the media, a 49-year-old woman named Abril Perez was shot dead by a gunman in a car in Mexico City on the 25th. The suspect, presumed to be a hitman, has yet to be caught. The bereaved family and acquaintances claim Perez’s husband may be behind it. Her husband, Garcia, was booked in January after hitting her with a baseball bat while her wife was asleep. Perez insisted he was attempted murder, and Garcia was arrested. Earlier this month, however, Garcia’s bail was allowed after the court lowered the charges of domestic violence. The judge judged that Garcia had no intention of killing his wife, saying he would have killed his sleeping wife sufficiently if he had tried to kill her. Violence against women is a problem that exists widely at all levels in the U.S. and Mexico also, and women’s life safety, health, and human rights dignity are seriously threatened. First, women are the main victims of domestic violence. Second, there are frequent cases of ‘minority’ women who are foreign immigrants or immigrants being sexually harassed and raped. Third, the problem of women in prison becoming victims of violence is serious. Gender equality is an important content of social equality and one of the key issues in realizing social processes. As women in America are not properly guaranteed rights in terms of economic sector, personal safety, and health, complaints about their social status inequality and social injustice are mounting. The serious gender discrimination situation in the U.S. has inherently aggravated a very serious inequity situation in American society, and further divided American society.

In the article, Feminicide in Mexico: An Approach through Academic, activist and Artistic Work by Martha Patricia Castañeda Salgado, the author says, “The prevailing definition of femicide is the violent murder of a woman by the very fact that she is a woman (Russell and Radford, 1992)”. It is a woman’s history of violence and the recognition of women as human rights subjects. The worst types of criminals that women could suffer are sexual harassment and rape. The impact of that social, political, and legal movement was a greater understanding of violence, but it was also an explosion of expression. Two important questions are still unanswerable, what are the causes and the motivation of feminicide? Domínguez and Ravelo (2003) pointed out several factors that might impacted it, “struggles inside organized crime, gory pornography, snuff films, satanic rituals, classist abuse based on the devaluation of women’s bodies, … women’s sacrifices to satisfy a misogynist hatred, … violence itself …”. It describes there is no one certain reason to define this phenomenon, however there is a connection between the factors that pressure and oppress women. Regardless of age, ethnicity, area, race, or economic status, all women can be victims of femicide. According to Cámara de Diputados in 2005, Nayarit was considered a dangerous place to live for women compared to Ciudad Juárez. In 2014, Estado de México was recognized as the most unsafe place as it had the highest level of women deaths. It is not happening in one specific place but hate crimes have been spread from one city to another, in Mexico country as time goes by.

The problem of gender discrimination in the U.S. is serious and multifaceted. The U.S., which claims to be a guardian of human rights, has yet to approve the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, a key human rights pact, and the issue of gender discrimination in the U.S. has been worsening day by day, seriously hindering the realization of women’s rights. The deep gender discrimination tradition in the United States and the abolition of the system, especially the social system, result in fundamental obstacles that the problem of gender discrimination cannot be solved efficiently. Sexual discrimination in the United States has a deep social and historical cause. The ‘people’ referred to in the ‘Independence Declaration,’ a political syllabus of the founding U.S., do not include women and blacks. American women’s rights have gone through many rough twists and turns. Women’s rights are an integral part of universal human rights. Women’s rights and reality are important symbols of a country’s human rights situation.

In conclusion, gender and multiculturalism are some of the most important issues that are happening not only in the States but everywhere where women are present. One of the examples that I conducted from my interviewee is Mexico, where a lot of gender hate crimes are rising frequently. President Donald Trump continues to build a wall to separate and prevent any illegal immigrants coming from Mexico. There are still barriers and unfairness that women are facing today in the U.S., however, more and more women from Mexico desire to immigrate while risking their lives to have a better life. It is very difficult for the U.S. government to take active steps to solve the real-life problem of gender discrimination. While women in America have made progress on the path to equal rights in each field, many existing gender discrimination issues in the United States have severely hampered the realization and development of women’s rights. As the world’s largest economy, and a country with important status in the current global structure and global governance system, the U.S. should show a responsible attitude in terms of eliminating gender discrimination and ensuring women’s rights and play an active and constructive role.

Works Cited

1. “Abril Pérez Sagaón: Shooting Sparks Feminist Outcry in Mexico.” BBC News, BBC, 29 Nov. 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50601975.
2. EEOC Releases Fiscal Year 2018 Enforcement and Litigation Data, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-10-19.cfm.
3. Martha Patricia Castañeda Salgado. “Feminicide in Mexico: An approach through academic, activist and artistic work”. https://femicideincanada.ca/sites/default/files/2019-05/femicicide.pdf
4. Susan Moller Okin. “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?”. https://canvas.ucsd.edu/courses/7852/files/170768?module_item_id=83491