Guest editorial: What is hate crime? Contemporary perspectives from four continents

Citation

Kalunta-Crumpton, A. (2024), "Guest editorial: What is hate crime? Contemporary perspectives from four continents", Safer Communities, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 189-191. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-07-2024-057

The date October 7, 2023, is a noteworthy marker of violent hatred displayed on the global scene in recent years [1]. On that day, Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, took Israeli soldiers and civilians off guard when they launched a sneak and indiscriminate attack on Israel, leaving many people in Israel dead, injured or abducted and held hostage. The attack and the counterattacks by Israel made news headlines on various media outlets across the globe, as thousands were killed or injured on both sides: Israel and Palestine. Victims included foreign nationals of other countries, such as the USA and Britain, as well as staff members of the UNRWA [2] who lost their lives to the Hamas – Israel conflict (see United Nations, 2024). While the strife has origins in Israel–Palestine conflictual relations that dates back to the late 19^th century (see, for example, Morris, 2001), the aftermath of the conflict between the two countries was riddled with hate-filled actions and rhetoric (see Saberi, 2023).

Various United Nations (UN) conventions on human rights and other forms of statements on crime have directly and indirectly condemned victimizations motivated by hate by prohibiting all forms of assaults on the inalienable rights of all human beings regardless of their differences, such as race, national origin, color, gender, religion, language and political opinion (see, for example, the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights). The UN position on hate speech is clear. And although the UN (2020, p. 10) has acknowledged that “there is no universally accepted definition of hate speech under international law,” it has justified its interest in hate speech for a variety of reasons. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, identifies one of such reasons when he described hate speech as a “precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide” (cited in UN, 2020, p. 7) that needed to be tackled. In the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, hate speech is defined thus:

Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. This is often rooted in, and generates, intolerance and hatred, and in certain contexts can be demeaning and divisive (UN, 2020, p. 10).

As with similar UN policies, this hate speech policy and others (see, for example, UN, 2021) are not a legislative mandate. Rather, they are guiding instruments for member states to consult so as to develop their own national plans for tackling hate speech. In essence, continents and countries may not assume the same position on the issue of hate speech. Therefore, they are likely to differ in their definitions and interpretations of, or approaches to, the broader issue of hate-motivated victimizations in their midst. Thus, while the problem of hate-motivated victimization is acknowledged internationally, its definition has not attained universal consensus. The European Union “law does not provide for a legal definition of hate speech and hate crime [….]” (European Commission, 2021, p. 7). The Americas are no different from the other continents in regard to establishing a standard legal definition of hate crime to unite the countries toward a common purpose. This seems to be particularly challenging for hate speech because of the boundaries between this type of speech and freedom of expression. Africa recognizes the absence of an international legal definition of hate speech. Therefore, the continent defers to the UN definition of hate speech noted above (see Massau, 2022).

As evident in this special issue, this line of dissensus in regard to hate crime trickles down to the national level, wherein the definition and constitution of a hate crime are debatable across and within the four different countries covered in this issue. For example, despite the fact that the USA first enacted a hate crime legislation in 1990, which was followed by the creation of a national hate crime data collection program under the management of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, law enforcement agency compliance with these developments has been challenging. Thus, the title of Kalunta-Crumpton’s contribution to this issue, “what exactly is a hate crime in the United States,” alludes to a fundamental deficiency in the legislative and law enforcement approaches to hate crime in the country.

The deficiency lies significantly in the variations in definitions, interpretations and contextualization of hate crime across states, with the effect that a universal compliance with federal hate crime legislation seems unattainable. Kalunta-Crumpton spells out some of the limitations of the U.S hate crime legislation. However, notwithstanding the flaws, there is an existence of legislation that specifically targets hate crime, which clearly shows that the USA is intolerant of hate-motivated victimization, at least in principle. The same may not be true for many countries across the world. Some countries, such as South Africa, do not have a hate crime legislation, while others, such as Italy and Brazil, are selective of groups to protect against hate-motivated victimization and/or situate such prohibitions within broad legislations.

Unlike the USA, with a hate crime legislation and a reporting system, South Africa is yet to establish a hate crime law, even though the South African Parliamentary National Assembly has recently passed the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill that had been in progress since 2009. According to Nel and Venter, the Bill, which is awaiting final processes of review and approval, is not without limitations or criticisms. This is not to state that the country lacks constitutional protection of its citizens against xenophobic prejudices or biases that might trample on their human rights. Aside from the fact that South African legislations that guard against discriminatory practices suffer implementation problems, they tend to treat hate-motivated victimizations as ordinary crimes. This approach undermines the distinctive motivations that underpin the crimes and, invariably, the unique impact of the crime on the victim.

However, as Nel and Venter indicate, there seems to be promise in a hate crime-specific legislation for South Africa, in that if the bill passes, it will not only send a message of denouncement of hate-motivated behaviors but will also include penalties specifically for hate-motivated victimizations, among other benefits. Like the U.S hate crime legislation, the South African hate crime/hate speech bill prohibits a wide range of hate motivations, including sexual orientation and gender identity – biases that Italy and Brazil are hesitant to embrace into the fold of legally prohibited hate crimes. With a focus on the LGBTQ+ community, Demurtas and Peroni (Italy) and Agapito and Ceccato (Brazil) provide accounts of the marginalization of this community in legislative protections against hate-motivated victimizations.

Brazil does not have an official definition of hate crime, and this seems to speak to the country’s nondescript attitude toward hate-motivated victimizations. Similarly, there is no specific legislation that protects groups against crimes that were motivated by hate. Rather, as Agapito and Ceccato illustrate, there are differing legislations that proscribe discrimination and offenses against different groups, and the offenses are considered hate crimes. Against this background, the authors express concerns about the lack of a specific legislation for the protection of LGBTQI+ victims of discrimination and crime, despite that globally, Brazil records one of the highest rates of violence against this community. Similar to the focus of Agapito and Ceccato’s contribution, Demurtas and Peroni’s paper takes issue with the absence of gender, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in Italy’s legislative protection of victims of hate-motivated victimization. Hate crimes are prohibited in specific provisions that are contained in Italy’s legislation on crimes against the person based on race, ethnicity and religion. Despite international pressure, calls from LGBTQI+ organizations, and a few bill proposals to incorporate the LGBTQI+ community in Italy’s antidiscrimination legislation, the community’s quest for sexual citizenship may take a long time to materialize, if it ever does.

Each of the contributions to this special issue provides a uniquely informative and insightful analysis of hate crime or hate-motivated victimization. As a collective, they alert readers to the reality that more work needs to be done to ensure that all human beings do not live in fear of victimization because of their status or group affiliation.

Notes

1. Due to circumstances beyond our control, three continents have been covered in this special issue instead of four. The three continents are Africa, Americas and Europe, and they are represented in four countries: South Africa, Brazil, USA and Italy, respectively.

2. United Nations Relief and Works Agency.