The history of hate crimes goes back many years but only recently have their been laws against inciting hatefulness in public places. After WWII Germany, France, England and the US passed laws that specifically prohibits public hatefulness based on race, religion, sexual orientation and gender. This paper presents a recap of those laws and provides ideas suited for reducing hate crimes; starting in grammar school, teachers should be bringing these issues into curricula and helping very young children understand the danger in bigotry and biases.
Hate Crimes
The rise in the instances of hate crimes in liberal democracies is disturbing and it cries out for a better understanding as to why it occurs -- and what to do about it. What are the potential solutions to the ugly specter of hateful acts against people because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, nationality, the color of their skin or their gender? This paper reviews the literature relative to the best ideas and proposals for identifying the root causes that produce hate crimes. Argument: hate crimes can be reduced through education, by paying close attention to bigoted conspiracy theories, and by infiltrating extremist / hate groups.
Original Issue -- Initial Solutions
Erik Bleich writes in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies that in order to try and stem the tide of racist and other hateful public pronouncements against individuals or groups, several European countries passed laws "…against racial incitement" (Bleich, 2011, 919). The House of Commons passed the 1965 Race Relations Act, making it illegal to "intentionally use threatening, abusive or insulting language" which is used in order to "stir up hatred against" people on the grounds of "…colour, race, or ethnic/national origins" (Bleich, 919).
After WWII Germany created Article 86 of the criminal code that makes it illegal to use Nazi symbols (swastikas and Nazi flags) (Bleich, 920). In 1960, the German Parliament voted "unanimously" to make it illegal to "…incite hatred, to provoke violence, or to insult, ridicule or defame 'parts of the population' in a manner apt to breach the public peace" (Bleich, 920).
France passed an anti-racism law in 1972 that banned "defamation" and "provocation to hatred and violence based on ethnicity, nationality, race or religion" (Bleich, 920). Austria enacted "Verbotsgesetz" in 1947 (amended in 1992) -- making it illegal to "deny that the Holocaust" occurred (Bleich, 920). In the U.S. The 1968 Civil Rights Act made it illegal to injure, intimidate, or "interfere with another person…by force…based on race, color, religion or national origin"; and in 2009 it became a federal crime to assault a person due to his or her sexual orientation of gender identity (CNN, 2009).
Critical Examination of Best Solutions
Those above-mentioned initial attempts at solutions serve a "symbolic and practical function," Bleich admits (928). Meanwhile other solutions are available for research as part of this paper. One solution to hate crimes is education: teaching young people about what causes others to hate, requiring them to examine their own beliefs. This is a vital step in the right direction.
Professor. Phyllis Gerstenfeld teaches a university course on hate crimes (at Cal State Stanislaus); and after discovering a dearth of texts on the subject, she authored a text on hate crimes and co-edited an anthology that accompanies her text. Students in her class are often reticent to voice opinions on sensitive subjects -- so she creates posters of stereotypes (African-Americans, gays, Latinos, etc.). On the first day of class she breaks the ice with these posters because "…students feel more comfortable discussing things once they are out in the open" (Gerstenfeld, 2004, 110). She breaks the class into small discussion groups, gives research assignments, and invites personal testimonials (one male student had a grandfather who was lynched) (110). When a student voices homophobic views, she tries to help them question "…the sources of their feelings" and points out that bigoted thoughts "…can provide an environment that nurtures hate crimes" (110). She requires that all students "…take measure of their own biases" by giving the Implicit Association Tests (110). This is a bold, intelligent approach.
Criminology Professor Eric Hickey (Cal State Fresno) suggests that law enforcement needs to do a better job of " infiltrating" extremist groups so they can be monitored before they lash out with violence based on their hatred (based race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion) (Hickey, 2009). Authorities know these hate groups because they use the Internet and hold public rallies; hence, "watchfulness and adherence to the rule of law" is a practical way, without taking away individual liberties, to keep hate-based crimes to a "minimum" (Hickey, 2009).
Evaluation of the Argument
Hate and violence have always been part of society and it is foolhardy to imagine eliminating hatefulness and bigotry that leads to violence. However, paying greater attention to the root causes of hate (ignorance, self-aggrandizement, ideology, religious fanaticism, et al.), teaching young people about the harm hate can cause, and embracing law enforcement strategies that can help prevent hate crimes before they occur, are smart solutions and should be followed.
Revised Argument
Meanwhile, Professor Gerstenfeld writes in the New York Times that notwithstanding the ongoing threats from "…hard core bigots who join supremacist groups or expound their views in websites or manifestos," society should resist rushing "…blindly into creating 'solutions' that are ill-suited to the real problems" (Gerstenfeld, 3). This viewpoint is salient to the overall issue; knee-jerk responses to radicalism and loathing will not solve the problem not crush out hate.
You’re 84% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.