Promoting Respect and Diversity Combating Intolerance and Hate Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

Home , Intolerance

Promoting respect and diversity Combating intolerance and hate Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

The European Union continues to witness challenges to its core principles and values, through violence motivated by hate and intolerance, through terrorist attacks against soft targets such as the media and cultural or religious facilities, and through the discrimination and exclusion of those regarded as ‘different’ because of what they believe in or where they come from.

Regardless of ethnic origin, religion or belief, everyone living in the Union has a fundamental right to be treated equally, to be respected and to be protected from violence. This contribution paper provides evidence of the fact that such respect is lacking, and suggests ways in which governments can ensure they fulfil their duty to safeguard this right for everyone living in the EU.

Key facts To improve the situation, measures should be taken to:  Evidence collected by FRA shows that o Improve victims’ access to justice, including racism, xenophobia and related steps to facilitate reporting of hate crime to intolerance are widespread, despite the police and discrimination to equality measures taken by government and bodies civil society across the EU o Improve hate crime recording by law  The social and political climate is enforcement and prosecution by criminal growing ever more tolerant of justice extremist, racist and xenophobic o Ensure that relevant penalties and sanctions agendas that exploit fears about youth are effective, proportionate and dissuasive unemployment and security in the face o Develop targeted media campaigns and of terrorism and other geopolitical training courses about the principles of challenges equality and non-discrimination as well as  Overall, this situation has a negative combating racism and prejudice in daily life impact on social cohesion, as well as on in order to empower a range of key people respect for fundamental rights involved, such as justice officials, law  Political action is necessary to ensure enforcement, social partners and educators full implementation of the EU’s existing o Support efforts to welcome the ethnic, legal framework in order to afford linguistic, cultural and religious diversity in effective protection from discrimination our societies and make use of it to bolster and hate social cohesion and growth.

1 Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

Discrimination and hate and nature of these phenomena in a given Member State. crime: the evidence Filling the data gap: FRA surveys The paucity of official data The core task of the Agency is to collect and The Agency has all too often pointed to the analyse data on fundamental rights issues. variation and resulting lack of comparability In order to address the absence of between statistics on hate crime and comparable data on discrimination and hate discrimination in the EU. This is largely due crime, the Agency carried out the first ever to historical experience in some Member EU-wide survey (the ‘European Union States, which now hesitate to collect data Minorities and Discrimination Survey’ or EU- disaggregated by ethnic origin or religious MIDIS) of migrants and minorities to belief. investigate their experiences of discrimination and criminal victimisation. The survey Another factor that influences the extent of a random sample of 23,500 migrants and and detail of available data is the minorities in 2008 was conducted just as EU significance attached by Member States to criminal law on combating certain types of empirical data collection as a tool to inform hate crime was introduced in the form of the policy development. This means that some 2008 Council Framework Decision on racism Member States, such as the United Kingdom, and xenophobia. the Netherlands or Germany, report much higher figures on ethnic discrimination and The survey, which is in the course of being ‘racist’ crime, simply because their laws and repeated in order to analyse trends over data collection mechanisms allow for time, provides evidence of incidents of broader categories of data. Other Member discrimination, as well as crimes such as States, such as Greece or Portugal, either assault, threat or serious harassment. don’t publish such data on a regular basis, or Respondents, many of whom were Muslims, issue limited data that represents only a noted the use of racially or religiously handful of cases. offensive language used against them. The availability of data is also of course  Overall, 37% of migrants and minorities influenced by victims’ willingness to report surveyed across the EU said they had incidents of discrimination and hate crime to personally experienced discrimination in the authorities; this, in turn, will be limited if the 12 months preceding the survey, the reporting system is not ‘user friendly’, while 12% had personally experienced recognising the needs and rights of victims, a racist crime. However, 80% of these particularly those from especially vulnerable did not report the incident to the police. groups. On the other hand, the willingness  The highest levels of discrimination of individuals to come forward and report were reported by Roma, with one in also depends on the capacity of public two respondents saying they had been authorities, in particular law enforcement, to discriminated against in the last 12 record and deal with such incidents months. High levels of discrimination efficiently. Only in this way is it possible to were also noted by Sub-Saharan provide effective access both to victim Africans (41%) and North Africans support and to redress mechanisms. (36%). Official figures on discrimination and hate  On average, 18% of all Sub-Saharan crime therefore often tell us more about the African and 18% of all Roma nature of data collection mechanisms, and respondents indicated that they had the use of data for policy development and experienced at least one ‘in-person action to tackle discrimination and hate crime’ (assault, threat, or serious crime, than they do about the true extent

2 harassment) in the last 12 months that and hate crime of Jewish people. While the they considered to be ‘racially survey showed that Jewish people are motivated. significantly affected by hate crime and discrimination, again the majority of victims Of the respondents who identified did not report to the authorities. themselves as Muslims (originating from North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Turkey, Iraq,  In the 12 months preceding the survey, or ex-Yugoslavia and stating that religion 21% of respondents had experienced played a ‘very important’ or ‘fairly physical attacks, serious harassment or important’ role in their lives), 11% had verbal insults motivated by fallen victim of racially motivated ‘in-person antisemitism. crime’ at least once in the 12 months  A majority of victims of harassment preceding the survey. Of those who said (76%), of physical violence or threats they had been victims of in-person crime, (64%), or of personal property between 53% and 98%, did not report their vandalism (53%) did not report the experience to the police, many saying there most serious incident in the past five would have been no point as in their opinion years to the police or any other the police would not have been able to do organisation. anything.  Approximately a third of respondents Trust in law enforcement is influenced by were worried about becoming a victim methods of policing. EU-MIDIS showed that of physical attack, while some 40% on average, 1 in 4 Muslim respondents had were concerned that family members been stopped by the police in the previous may become the victim of a physical 12 months, and 40% of these believed that attack. this was specifically because of their immigrant or minority status. On average,  Nonetheless, almost two-thirds of the 37% of Muslim respondents stopped by respondents who had experienced customs or border control in the previous 12 physical violence or threats of violence months believed the checks had taken place did not report the most serious incident specifically because of their immigrant or to the police or any other organisation. minority background. This compared with  The majority of respondents who did 19% of non-Muslim minority respondents not report incidents of hate crime or surveyed in EU-MIDIS. discrimination to the police or any other In sum, the findings of EU-MIDIS indicated a organisations said this was because clear need to strengthen protection against “nothing would happen or change” by discrimination and hate crime, and to doing so. improve access to justice and more comprehensive victim support. At the same The question of perpetrators time, the findings also demonstrated a Surveys provide robust information on profound lack of trust in law enforcement perceptions and experiences of victims. that necessitate an examination of the However, it is more difficult to acquire such impact of law enforcement methods on information on perpetrators. The identity of relations with ethnic minority groups. In those who discriminate on grounds of ethnic addition, the findings point to an urgent origin is available, if the case is taken up by need to improve the reporting and recording courts and/or equality bodies, but their of incidents of hate crime and characteristics are neither systematically discrimination. collected nor analysed. FRA is currently These results were largely reflected in the addressing this gap through the second EU- findings of a survey conducted by FRA in MIDIS survey, which includes questions on 2012 on the experiences of discrimination offenders.

3 Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

In the case of hate crime, official data rarely The question of perpetrators is politically include detailed information on perpetrators sensitive, but it is nevertheless essential in (with the exception of aggregate data order to formulate effective responses. In collected by some Member States). this respect, the available evidence However, survey respondents can provide suggests that community relations can information based on their perception of benefit from local level initiatives to bring perpetrator characteristics. together members of different minority ethnic and religious groups as well as the Interestingly, both EU-MIDIS and the survey general (non-minority) population, in order of Jewish people found that respondents did to have a frank and open discussion of not confirm the widespread assumption that issues of social inclusion, respect and crimes motivated by hate are usually community relations that affect their daily committed by right-wing extremists. life. For example, only 13% of Turkish victims and 12% of Roma victims of assault or Intolerance and hate in the threat identified perpetrators as members of right-wing extremist groups. The survey public sphere of Jewish people also found that 27% of Open expressions of racism draw the respondents perceived the perpetrator of attention of the media, especially when the most serious incident of antisemitic made by politicians or other opinion makers harassment they had experienced in the last in public discourse. Even when repudiated five years to be someone with a Muslim by other politicians or the media, their extremist view, 22% someone with message is nonetheless unavoidably extremist left-wing political views and 19% multiplied. someone with extremist right-wing political views. In both surveys, the results vary In recent years there have been several greatly between Member States. such cases, with black government ministers or professional athletes compared EU-MIDIS also sought to ascertain whether to apes, statements made to the effect that the last incident of assault and threat maybe Hitler did not kill enough gens du experienced by the survey respondents had voyage, and claims that Jewish Zionists been at the hand of someone from the same financed and organised the Holocaust, etc. or another ethnic group. As many as 71% of Sub‑Saharan Africans said perpetrators had These messages are all too often picked up been members of the majority population, and further disseminated via social media which would seem to indicate ‘racist’ on the internet, triggering outbursts of victimisation. In general, a high percentage anonymous hate speech that magnify their of the victims surveyed in EU‑MIDIS had effect still further. experienced assault or threat at the hands These racist statements do not appear in a of another ethnic group, but this finding is vacuum. They find reference points in a not, by itself, an indication of hate crime. It xenophobic discourse that is becoming more does show, however, that in person crime is ‑ socially acceptable and politically a complex issue that can involve different mainstreamed across the EU, building on old people from various ethnic backgrounds. and new dichotomies between ‘us and One view of this reality might see the them’ - not only in terms of skin colour or majority population perpetrating crimes nationality, but also with relation to culture against minorities, while another might see and a willingness to adopt ‘European inter‑ethnic conflict manifesting itself as values’. hate crime.

4 In this way, xenophobic discourse justifies Similarly, a court in France held in 2013 that its claim to ‘difference’ by postulating the Twitter should provide information to the cultural superiority of ‘Europe’ vis-à-vis plaintiffs enabling them to identify the ‘other’ countries, which are often those authors of tweets posted under antisemitic from which migrants and their descendants hashtags. The court’s judgment also originate. Much has been written on required Twitter to enable users of its Europe’s historical claims of cultural-ethical French platform to report content that falls hegemony and how these fed into the racist under the category of crimes against discourse of 19th and 20th century Europe. humanity and incitement to racial hatred. However, seventy years after the Second Prosecutors in the United Kingdom can call World War, it is apparently still necessary to upon legal guidance for how to prosecute remind ourselves of the efforts by the online content of a racist nature. The United Nations to declare precisely the Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving values of democracy, human rights and the communications sent via social media, rule of law as universal. drafted by the Crown Prosecution Office, The cacophony of racist and intolerant describe the action necessary in order for discourse influences mainstream politics at such a prosecution to be initiated.1 national, and more importantly at local level, The first stage requires sufficient evidence, eroding trust and social cohesion, and while the second involves a consideration of contributing to a climate of fear and the public interest. Before bringing charges, insecurity among members of ethnic and prosecutors are encouraged to take into religious minorities. account the context in which the interactive social media dialogue takes place and to Intolerance online carefully consider whether a given The online universe, especially social media, prosecution would not constitute a breach provides a forum for the free and open of the right to free speech as protected by expression of ideas and as such promotes the European Convention on Human Rights. democracy and, in particular, freedom of In establishing this, Member States can draw expression. Conversely, though, the lack of on rich case law of the European Court of any effective self-regulation also allows this Human Rights (ECtHR).2 In a number of forum to be used for promoting extremist cases, the Court has ruled speech of a racist, and intolerant views. 73% of respondents xenophobic, antisemitic or aggressively to FRA’s antisemitism survey thought that nationalist nature and speech discriminating antisemitism online had increased over the against minorities and immigrants to be past five years. offensive and contrary to the European However, the anonymity afforded to Convention on Human Rights. However, the internet users does not necessarily mean ECtHR is careful in its judgements to they can post racist or xenophobic material distinguish between hate speech on the one with impunity: in 2013, the Supreme Court hand and the right of individuals (including in Italy found that managing a blog inciting journalists and politicians) on the other to racial hatred is equivalent to participating in express their views freely, even if they a criminal association. offend, shock or disturb others.

1 Crown Prosecution Service (2013), Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media, www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/. 2 For a good overall view see the factsheet of the European Court of Human Rights (2014), Hate speech, available at: www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf.

5 Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

In its recent case Delfi v. Estonia3, the ECtHR and measures to ensure that it is effectively ruled that the Estonian news site Delfi may implemented, to raising rights awareness, be held liable for anonymous and confronting racism and intolerance in public defamatory comments posted online from discourse, improving reporting and its readers. A similar responsibility would recording of hate crime, providing effective probably be recognised in the case of hate operational training to law enforcement, speech. and programmes to promote dialogue between communities. In the EU context, the European Commission has called on Member States to intervene in The first step, however, as FRA’s work has cases of online hate speech in line with shown, is to acknowledge the existence and Article 9 of the Framework Decision on recognise the impact of racism and Racism and Xenophobia, which stipulates: xenophobia. Although such recognition is a “When establishing jurisdiction over conduct prerequisite to building effective responses, committed within their territory, Member governments often find it difficult to States must ensure that their jurisdiction acknowledge, even in the face of evidence extends to cases where the conduct is presented by European and international committed through an information system, human rights bodies and organisations. and the offender or materials hosted in that An important element in recognising the system are in its territory.”4 extent and impact of racism is raising Given the particular characteristics of online awareness among public authorities, in and social media as well as online particular law enforcement agencies and communication – in which we have seen the the criminal justice system, statutory human increasing involvement of young children – rights bodies and civil society organisations more needs to be done to prevent about the need to respect and protect the expressions of hate and intolerance. One ethnic, religious and cultural diversity of means would be to support initiatives such European societies. In this context, it is as Insafe, a European network of national crucial to discuss racism and xenophobia as awareness centres in all Member States that threats to social cohesion rather than as works closely with youth and runs phenomena that only affect ‘foreigners’. awareness campaigns and a helpline. Such an approach could foster the successful Exchange of promising practices to address social inclusion of members of minority online intolerance should also be further groups, an issue that concerns not only encouraged. minorities, but society as a whole. Increasing public trust in law enforcement Countering intolerance and and criminal justice is indispensable in the hate fight against hate crime and racism. In this light, it would be useful to consider The work of international organisations such independent investigations into forms of as the Council of Europe and the Office for ‘institutionalised racism’ that have taken Democratic Institutions and Human Rights place around the EU as a means of (ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and developing more effective responses to Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has shown racism. One example is the 1999 Inquiry in that a mixture of varied measures is needed the United Kingdom into the death in 1993 in order to counter hate and intolerance of Stephen Lawrence, a young Black British effectively. These range from legislation man, in order to identify lessons to be

3 European Court of Human Rights, DELFI AS v. ESTONIA, No. 64569/09, 16 June 2015 4 European Commission (2014), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.

6 learned for the investigation and Member States concerning gaps in its prosecution of racially motivated crimes.5 transposition and implementation into The inquiry, which uncovered “a national law. combination of professional incompetence, Member States have means at their disposal institutional racism and a failure of to address open manifestations of racist, leadership by senior officers”, eventually xenophobic and related intolerance in the led to reforms in law enforcement, criminal form of EU and national legal provisions. justice and the state’s response to racism. In Their implementation can be improved by the fifteen plus years since the Lawrence strengthening the mandate and the capacity Inquiry, it would be encouraging to see of national human rights mechanisms, such other Member States systematically as Equality bodies, Ombuds and statutory reviewing institutional cultures and human rights institutions, to better enforce practices in an effort to root out these provisions. discriminatory behaviour. In addition, the coordination of these Implementing legislation mechanisms with public authorities and civil society could be improved by adopting a In its report on the implementation of the multi-agency approach that fosters the Framework Decision on Racism and cooperation of all these actors in practical Xenophobia (2008/913/JHA), the European ways to achieve commonly agreed goals. Commission addressed the issue of This could be operationalised in national penalties for hate speech and hate crime by action plans or strategies specifically means of criminal law. It found that although addressing racism, xenophobia and related the majority of Member States penalise intolerance. incitement to racist and xenophobic violence and hatred, their legal provisions In addition, Member States could consider do not always fully transpose the offences adopting or strengthening existing legal covered by the framework decision. In provisions to hold back public funding for addition, the report identifies “some gaps political parties whose members have […] in relation to the racist and xenophobic committed racist or discriminatory acts, as motivation of crimes, the liability of legal recommended by the European Commission persons and jurisdiction”.6 The Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the engaged in bilateral talks with Member Council of Europe.7 They could also consider States in 2014 to ensure full and correct preventing the activities of organisations transposition of the framework decision. that promote and incite hatred by disbanding them and declaring them illegal As of 1 December 2014, the European as recommended by the United Nations Commission can launch infringement Committee on the Elimination of Racial proceedings against Member States that Discrimination.8 The ECtHR set a precedent have not fully transposed the framework when it confirmed the dissolution of the decision. Since then, the Commission has Hungarian Guard Association (Magyar sent a number of administrative letters to Gárda) because of the activities of its

5 Home Office (24-02-1999), Independent report: The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-stephen-lawrence-inquiry 6 European Commission (2014), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. 7 European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2013), ECRI report on Finland (fourth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe. 8 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013), Concluding observations on the ninth to the tenth periodic reports of Slovakia, adopted by the Committee at its eighty‑second session (11 February–1 March 2013), CERD/C/SVK/CO/9- 10.

7 Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

Hungarian Guard Movement, in Vona v.  a recent study11 revealed that in the Hungary.9 These included paramilitary rallies UK, more than 60% of new migrants in villages with Roma populations across from western and southern Europe are Hungary, as well as advocacy for racist university graduates, while 25% of policies. The Court found that the Hungarian recent arrivals of east Europeans to authorities were entitled to take preventive Britain have a degree compared with measures to protect democracy and ban the 24% of the UK-born workforce. Magyar Gárda. It ruled that, if the activities  EU migrants made between 2000 and of an association amount to widespread 2011 a net contribution of £20bn to racist intimidation of a group, then banning UK public finances – £15bn more in it does not contravene the European taxes than they received in welfare. Convention on Human Rights. Awareness-raising programmes are also Disbanding such organisations may not needed to inform the public in general, and change the behaviour of individual victims of discrimination or hate crime in members or prevent them from gathering particular, about their rights and the redress and acting collectively in a hostile and mechanisms available to them. FRA and discriminatory manner toward certain Eurobarometer finding show that rights groups. It would, however, send a clear awareness in the EU is worryingly low. And signal that racism and hate are not tolerated laws work well only when people know by society at large. them and use them. Comprehensive and concerted awareness- Raising awareness raising activities can therefore be effective In its report on the implementation of the tools for improving social cohesion and racial and employment equality directives, inclusion. Awareness-raising measures that the European Commission stated: “the main aim at producing a shift in the way societies challenge now is to increase awareness of deal and live with each other would have to the already existing protection and to bring about a change in attitudes and ensure better practical implementation and behaviour. Knowledge and rights awareness application of the [equality] Directives”.10 alone are therefore not sufficient, and measures must go beyond traditional Awareness-raising measures are vital to information sharing. For this purpose, it will counter the myths that feed racism, be necessary to develop tailor-made tools xenophobia and related intolerance with that can reach out to citizens and also to facts. For instance, the following facts would groups particularly vulnerable to be useful to bring to a discussion on the discrimination and crimes motivated by bias. issue of migration: Not knowing where to turn to seek redress  out of 19.5 million refugees worldwide in cases of discrimination is often the first at the end of 2014, it is not an EU barrier to fully exercising the fundamental country but Turkey that hosts the right to equal treatment. Given the largest number (1.59 million at the complexity of organisations and institutions end of 2014, rising to approximately 2 in Member States that are responsible for million by September 2015) offering information and support to victims

9 CASE OF VONA v. HUNGARY (Application no. 35943/10) Final judgment 9 July 2013, available at FINALhttp://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-122183#{"itemid":["001-122183"]} 10 European Commission (2014), Joint Report on the application of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (‘Racial Equality Directive’) and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘Employment Equality Directive’). 11 Centre for Research & Analysis of Migration, University College London, http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

8 of discrimination, it is often difficult for xenophobic and related incidents online, by victims to know where to turn. Evidence phone, by text messaging or through social shows that most victims do not seek networks, as well as by contacting civil redress, which leads to impunity for society organisations or statutory human perpetrators and creates a climate in which rights bodies. Cases could then be brought their behaviour is considered acceptable. to the police or the criminal justice system for further investigation and, where Awareness must therefore be raised about relevant, prosecution. Establishing such the ethnic, religious and cultural diversity systems would entail close cooperation that is the reality of the EU today, about the between law enforcement agencies, extent of discrimination and hate crime, statutory human rights bodies and civil about existing laws, and about where and society organisations. how victims can receive support. This should take place in cooperation with and through Community policing also offers Member public authorities, statutory human rights States a way to increase trust in public bodies and civil society organisations. authorities among members of ethnic and religious minorities. Developing such Improving reporting - increasing trust in practices can help restore relations between law enforcement the police and local communities, and build trust in law enforcement. At the same time, As mentioned above, FRA research shows police officers need training to be sensitive that a lack of trust in the authorities is a key to particular issues, while the make-up of reason for victims of crime not to report the police force should reflect as far as their experiences. However, such a lack of possible the cultural and ethnic mix of the trust and sense of insufficient protection communities it serves. have potentially far-reaching implications, both as a possible factor in any radicalisation Ethnic profiling, when it is discriminatory, process and also as a further obstacle to offers fertile ground for the (sometimes effective communication between the violent) expression of intolerant views authorities and particular communities. through its accompanying effect of negative Building more confidence in the police and stereotyping of the population groups criminal justice is thus a precondition not targeted. It also offers fertile ground for the only for increasing reporting of hate crime, radicalisation of those targeted by the but also for positive community relations. practice. Member States should therefore These, together with greater rights ensure that any profiling they implement is awareness and a decreasing sense of not discriminatory and consider replacing discrimination, could help reduce the risks of the practice with intelligence-based policing social marginalisation and radicalisation. that complies fully with fundamental rights.

Measures taken to increase reporting and FRA’s Working Party on Hate Crime recording of hate crime serve to build trust in law enforcement agencies and other Enabling victims to seek redress against institutions, making it easier for victims or perpetrators is the lynchpin of the FRA- witnesses to report their experiences. initiated Working Party on Encouraging In this context, Member States could Reporting and Improving Recording of Hate Crime. This working party was set up in direct consider testing and establishing systems of response to a call from the Council of the EU third-party reporting (as foreseen by the for FRA “to work together with Member States Racial Equality Directive, Art. 7 (2)), as well to facilitate exchange of good practices and as making it possible for incidents to be assist the Member States at their request in reported at any time and in a location other their effort to develop effective methods to than a police station. Such systems enable encourage reporting and ensure proper victims and witnesses to report racist, recording of hate crimes”. The working party

9 Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

brings together FRA, 28 EU Member States, Facing Facts! aims to standardise criteria for the European Commission, ODIHR, and ECRI. Its comparable data collection on hate crime, activities cover four areas, areas (reporting, train civil society organisations to gather, recording, multi-agency partnerships and analyse and report data; hold governments training) predicated on an exchange of accountable to existing international practices between staff from ministries, agreements, and improve cooperation prosecutors’ offices, law enforcement between different socio-cultural groups. agencies, police training institutions and The project has already resulted in a number national parliaments. of train-the-trainers programmes and guidelines on how to monitor hate crime. Improving monitoring and recording Closer cooperation and exchange of For Member States to address hate crime practices successfully, they need reliable data from courts of last instance on the outcomes of Closer and better cooperation is a relevant cases. The lack of such data renders prerequisite for combating hate crime authorities unable to devise and implement effectively. This includes enhancing multi- policy responses that address hate crime agency partnerships to create synergies in effectively. combating hate crime. This requires an integrated approach, with close cooperation In order to ensure the bias motivation between relevant agencies and underlying hate crime is recognised and to organisations at national and international stress the gravity of the offence, legislators level, including law enforcement agencies, should consider introducing enhanced the criminal justice system, relevant penalties, rather than leaving bias ministries, EU institutions and agencies, motivation as a mere aggravating international organisations and civil society, circumstance in the criminal code. This including victim support services. should allow more detailed recording and result in a greater number of investigations One goal of FRA’s working party is to and prosecutions of perpetrators, thereby facilitate the exchange of guidelines and leading to the acknowledgement of more protocols used by law enforcement victims. agencies and criminal justice systems in Member States to recognise, investigate Civil society organisations have a particular and prosecute hate crime. In the same way, role to play in combating hate crime, as the the working party is helping Member States 12 Facing Facts! project testifies. The main to share hands-on training and capacity objective of this project is to improve building modules to increase the operational monitoring and recording of hate crimes and skills of frontline police officers and to incidents throughout the EU. It is led by CEJI increase prosecutors’ ability to address hate – A Jewish contribution to an inclusive crime. Europe, in partnership with the Community Security Trust in the United Kingdom, the Training Dutch Centre for Information and Documentation Israel, the Federation of To make hate crimes visible, alternative Dutch Associations for the Integration of routes have to be considered to enable and Homosexuality, and the International empower victims of hate crime to come Lesbian and Gay Association in Europe forward to report. Ownership by police of (ILGA-Europe). such models can be created by training and

12 www.facingfacts.eu.

10 sharing experiences from other countries, awareness-raising programmes on hate where they are applied. crime will also be reviewed. The identification and recording of hate Stepping up dialogue crimes require filing officers to have a specific set of knowledge and skills. More honest and open dialogue between Knowing to ask certain questions and check and among communities, and between and particular information, looking for key words among faith groups, is a crucial step to etc. can enable them to quickly identify and fostering understanding and subsequently categorise a potential hate crime as such. acceptance and inclusion. Some important steps have been made, in particular at the Drawing inspiration from the Victims’ local level. The European Commission also Directive, which must be transposed into hosts a high level inter-faith dialogue every national law by November 2015, victims year. should be placed at the centre of investigations and police should be and stay However, so-called ‘intercultural/interreligi- closely engaged with the respective ous dialogues’ are often not a dialogue, but communities and civil society organisations. a mere presentation of each party’s views. Both, the targeted investigations and the The use of dialogue (facilitation) methods modes of equal engagement with all parts to enable truly respectful dialogue would of society and cooperation with civil society therefore be a significant move way organisations can be achieved via training. forward. Specialised training on hate crime is Given that a significant proportion of crimes therefore a useful means of building the are attributed by victims – or rather certain necessary skills within the police and groups of victims – as being perpetrated by prosecution, enabling them to: people with an ethnic minority or immigrant background, an open dialogue should allow  Improve reporting mechanisms, such issues to be addressed within the thereby helping to reveal the scale of broader context of recognising discrimi- hate crime in a respective country nation and hate crime perpetrated by  Identify and record hate crimes as such members of the general population.  Use a victim-centred approach to investigate hate crimes In conclusion  Prosecute hate crimes based on the Twenty years on, many of the biased motivations. recommendations made by the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia, The fourth area covered by FRA’s working also known as the Kahn Committee, “on party involves training for law enforcement cooperation between governments and the and criminal justice staff. A mapping of various social bodies in favour of existing training and capacity building encouraging tolerance, understanding and programmes and practices at the national harmony with foreigners“ remain relevant, and international levels will help to identify especially in regard to educational measures training gaps and needs. This exchange will that teach respect for diversity and mutual inform operational training for law loyalty, to training for occupational groups, enforcement agencies and the criminal and to measures for “difficult districts“, justice system and enable staff to recognise where socio- economic deprivation is incidents of hate crime and investigate them, equipped with the necessary skills, and deal with them appropriately. Training practices that lead to an increased awareness of potential victims and general

11 Contribution to the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights

pervasive.13 The Kahn Committee’s terms of ons-paris-attacks-eu-fundamental-rights- reference to make recommendations considerations. “geared as far as possible to national and FRA (2014), Fundamental rights: challenges and local circumstances“ also remain relevant. achievements in 2013 - Annual report 2013, The EU has adopted legislation to tackle Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European discrimination, hate speech and hate crime, Union. and it has funded many large and small- FRA (2014), Working party on improving scale transnational projects. Many Member reporting and recording of hate crime in the EU – States have also taken similar action. inaugural meeting report. However, much more can be done at local FRA (2013), Discrimination and hate crime level, particularly in school settings, with against Jews in EU Member States: Experiences law enforcement, social partners and the and perceptions of antisemitism, Luxembourg, media. Publications Office of the European Union. The fight against discrimination, racism, FRA (2013), Fundamental rights-based police xenophobia and related intolerance, as well training – A manual for police trainers, as efforts to respect and protect http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/funda fundamental rights must be an ongoing mental-rights-based-police-training-manual- effort in the face of new challenges. police-trainers. FRA (2013), Fundamental rights: challenges and This effort requires political will, efficient achievements in 2012 - Annual report 2012, operational coordination and sharing of Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European expertise and experience among all those Union involved, from EU bodies, through national, FRA (2013), Opinion of the European Union regional and local authorities, law Agency for Fundamental Rights on the situation enforcement agencies, the criminal justice of equality in the European Union 10 years on system, educational authorities, statutory from initial implementation of the equality human rights and equality bodies, to service directives, Luxembourg, Publications Office of providers and civil society organisations. the European Union. FRA (2013), Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia FRA publications - with special attention to the rights of victims of FRA (2015), Antisemitism – Summary overview crime, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the of the data available in the European Union European Union. 2004–2014. FRA (2013), Thematic situation report: Racism, FRA (2015), Embedding fundamental rights in discrimination, intolerance and extremism. the security agenda, available at: Learning from experiences in Greece and http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/embe Hungary, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the dding-fundamental-rights-security-agenda. European Union. FRA (2015), Fundamental rights: challenges and FRA (2012), EU‑MIDIS Data in Focus Report 6: achievements in 2014 - Annual report 2014, Minorities as victims of crime, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Publications Office of the European Union. Union. FRA (2012), Making hate crime visible in the FRA (2015), Reactions to the Paris attacks in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights, EU: fundamental rights considerations, available Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European at: Union. http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/reacti

13 Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia (1995), Final Report, available at http://aei.pitt.edu/1588/1/Kahn_report.pdf

12 FRA (2012), The European Union as a community FRA (2010), EU-MIDIS data in focus report 4: of values: safeguarding fundamental rights in police stops and minorities, Luxembourg, times of crisis, Luxembourg, Publications Office Publications Office of the European Union. of the European Union. FRA (2010), Towards more effective policing, FRA/UNDP (2012), The situation of Roma in 11 understanding and preventing discriminatory EU Member States. Survey results at a glance, ethnic profiling: a guide, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Publications Office of the European Union. Union. FRA (2009), EU-MIDIS main results report, FRA (2010), Data in focus report – rights Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European awareness and equality bodies, strengthening Union. the fundamental rights architecture in the EU, All publications are available at Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources. Union.