DOCSLIB.ORG

Hate Crime Recording and Data Collection Practice Across the EU

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hate Crime Recording and Data Collection Practice Across the EU JUSTICE Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU Photo (cover & inside): © fra.europa.eu (Luc Schwartz); stock.adobe.com (rcfotostock); stock.adobe.com (g0d4ather). For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under FRA’s copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 Print: ISBN 978-92-9474-064-9 doi:10.2811/239809 TK-01-18-459-EN-C Web: ISBN 978-92-9474-063-2 doi:10.2811/2153 TK-01-18-159-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2018 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Neither the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights nor any person acting on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information. Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU Foreword Across the European Union, people still face hatred because of their skin colour, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality – despite various efforts by the EU and its Member States to tackle this problem. Laws against hate crime are in place, imposing increased penalties for bias motivation, and diverse services are available for victims. Are these measures enough? There are two major catches. Only a fraction of victims report hate-motivated harassment and violence to the police. Moreover, even when they do, police officers do not always flag them as hate crimes. Some may not recognise certain incidents as stemming from prejudice. Others may simply lack the necessary practical tools, such as incident reporting forms, that allow racist motivation to be noted – or the inclination to provide informa- tion not always deemed obligatory. This means these hate crimes remain unidentified or unrecorded – and thus un-investigated, unprosecuted, uncounted and, ultimately, invisible. The ramifications are multi-layered and mutually reinforcing. Law enforcement and policymakers may underesti- mate the scale and nature of the problem. As a result, measures to prevent and curtail it, and to support victims, may fall short. Individuals left without redress – as well as their loved ones and even communities as a whole – will feel little faith in a system that fails to adequately address their plight, further discouraging reporting. Social cohesion, too, can suffer. Encouragingly, initiatives to counter this troubling cycle are gaining momentum. They include producing relevant guidance for police officers; requiring the collection of detailed and disaggregated data on crime, rendering vis- ible that motivated by bias; and working with civil society organisations experienced in dealing with hate crime. This report adds to the momentum by providing rich and detailed information on hate crime recording and data collection systems across the EU, including any systemic cooperation with civil society. It can support efforts to strengthen recording and data collection as well as capacity-building activities to counter hate crime – essential elements of effectively combating prejudice, supporting victims and fostering inclusive societies. We would like to express our gratitude to the members of the Subgroup on methodologies for recording and collecting data on hate crime – this report would not have been possible without their contributions. Michael O’Flaherty Director 3 Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU Country codes Country code EU Member State AT Austria BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CY Cyprus CZ Czech Republic DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia EL Greece ES Spain FI Finland FR France HR Croatia HU Hungary IE Ireland IT Italy LT Lithuania LU Luxembourg LV Latvia MT Malta NL Netherlands PL Poland PT Portugal RO Romania SE Sweden SK Slovakia SI Slovenia UK United Kingdom 4 Acronyms and abbreviations CC Criminal Code CEJI Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe CSO Civil society organisation ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECRI European Commission against Racism and Intolerance ECtHR European Court of Human Rights ENAR European Network Against Racism EU-MIDIS European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey GPR General Policy Recommendation ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination IGO Intergovernmental organisation OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation ODIHR OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights SDG Sustainable Development Goal 5 Contents FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................................................3 WHY THIS REPORT? ........................................................................................................................................ 9 KEY FINDINGS AND FRA OPINIONS ............................................................................................................... 11 1 INTERNATIONAL NORMS, STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE ON HATE CRIME RECORDING AND DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................... 13 2 COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................19 2.1. Recording hate crime .............................................................................................................................19 2.2. Collecting and publishing disaggregated hate crime data ................................................................23 2.3. Cooperation between law enforcement agencies and civil society organisations ......................25 3 RECORDING AND COLLECTING DATA ON HATE CRIME IN THE EU-28 .................................................. 27 Austria............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Belgium ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 Bulgaria ............................................................................................................................................................33 Croatia ..............................................................................................................................................................35 Cyprus ............................................................................................................................................................. 37 Czech Republic ............................................................................................................................................... 39 Denmark ..........................................................................................................................................................41 Estonia ............................................................................................................................................................ 43 Finland ............................................................................................................................................................ 45 France .............................................................................................................................................................49 Germany ..........................................................................................................................................................52 Greece..............................................................................................................................................................55 Hungary .......................................................................................................................................................... 57 Ireland .............................................................................................................................................................60 Italy 62 Latvia ..............................................................................................................................................................64 Lithuania .........................................................................................................................................................66 Luxembourg ...................................................................................................................................................68 Malta ............................................................................................................................................................... 70 The Netherlands ............................................................................................................................................ 72 Poland ............................................................................................................................................................. 74 Portugal .......................................................................................................................................................... 76 Romania.......................................................................................................................................................... 78 Slovakia .........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statement by Alice Wairimu Nderitu, United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, on the Continued Deterioration of the Situation in Ethiopia
    UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE For immediate release Statement by Alice Wairimu Nderitu, United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, on the continued deterioration of the situation in Ethiopia (New York, 30 July 2021) The Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, Alice Wairimu Nderitu, expressed alarm at the continued deterioration of ethnic violence in Ethiopia and at the strong allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in the Tigray region as well as in other parts of the country, including in Afar, Somali, Oromo and Amhara regions. The Special Adviser also reiterated concerns expressed in her 5 February 2021 statement on the situation in the country. Since the beginning of the conflict in the Tigray region, the Special Adviser has continued to receive reports of serious human rights violations and abuses, including alleged sexual violence, recruitment of child soldiers, arbitrary arrests and ethnic based targeted killings committed by all parties, which have now escalated to other parts of the country. She also deplored the erosion of rule of law and echoed the recent call by the Human Rights Council for an immediate end to the violence and human rights violations in Tigray. The Special Adviser also condemned inflammatory statements used by top political leaders and associated armed groups. The use of pejorative and dehumanizing language like “cancer”, “devil”, “weed” and “bud” to refer to the Tigray conflict is of utmost concern. Hate speech, together with its propagation through social media is part of a worrisome trend that contributes to further fuel ethnic tensions in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Homelesnesss in Spain: Rights Violation Beyond Housing
    HOMELESNESSS IN SPAIN: RIGHTS VIOLATION BEYOND HOUSING Summary: Homelessness is a form of extreme social exclusion affecting 33,000 people in Spain and which is directly related to poverty. It is a phenomenon impacting different groups all of them vulnerated in their right to access a decent house. The lack of access to an adequate house entails the vulneration of other rights such as the right to access health care services or safety itself. Homelessness is a phenomenon that could be solved in 8 years with the adequate public policies. In Spain, housing is a right included in the Constitution and in the international treaties which is vulnerated every day. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include in their objective 11.11, “to ensure that everyone has access to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services by 2030”. On the other side, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights stresses that international law “acknowledges the right everyone has to an adequate level of life, including an adequate housing (…)2”. Likewise, principle number 19 of the document “The European Pillar of Social Rights” adopted by the EU mentions the duty to provide access to social housing or aids for a good quality housing for those people who are in need. In the Spanish legislation, article 47 of the Constitution states the right to enjoy from a decent and adequate housing; but that disposition is set in the “guiding principles of social and economic policies” and they are rights that can only be claimed before ordinary jurisdiction as to what the concerning laws may stipulate.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Sandel Dethrone Meritocracy?
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2-2021 Can Sandel Dethrone Meritocracy? Robert L. Tsai Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law and Philosophy Commons CAN SANDEL DETHRONE MERITOCRACY? Boston University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Paper No. 21-09 February 2021 Robert L. Tsai Boston University School of Law Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3777285 Can Sandel Dethrone Meritocracy? Robert L. Tsai† In the past, Michael Sandel has inveighed against modes of debate that bracket moral questions and exhorted Americans to discuss controversial issues in openly ethical terms, without telling us whose moral conception should prevail. His inviting and probing style, coupled with his insistence that you couldn’t have a just society without being judgmental, has made him an academic sensation.1 The title of his new book, The Tyranny of Merit,2 disparages merit, but is coy about whether the idea is problematic in the abstract or in practice. About halfway through the book, I felt that he had finally slipped off the fence on the question under consideration. Merit was not a laudable concept that should be saved. As the pace of the book quickened, so Sandel became more urgent in trying to persuade us there is something intrinsically corrosive about the idea itself. Sandel contends that a meritocratic manner of approaching the important things in life is objectionable for two reasons. First, it may actually lock-in inequality rather than ameliorate it by layering a sense of unjustified desert on top of existing inequities.
    [Show full text]
  • Revista De Educación Nº 387 JANUARY-MARCH 2020 Revista De Educación Nº 387 JANUARY-MARCH 2020 Nº 386 October-December 2019 Quarterly Journal Starting Year: 1952
    revista de eDUCACIÓN Nº 387 JANUARY-MARCH 2020 revista de eDUCACIÓN Nº 387 JANUARY-MARCH 2020 Nº 386 October-December 2019 Quarterly Journal Starting year: 1952 MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN Y FORMACIÓN PROFESIONAL SECRETARÍA DE ESTADO DE EDUCACIÓN Y FORMACIÓN PROFESIONAL Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa Paseo del Prado, 28, 4.ª planta 28014 Madrid España Edita © SECRETARÍA GENERAL TÉCNICA Subdirección General de Atención al Ciudadano, Documentación y Publicaciones Catálogo de publicaciones del Ministerio: sede.educacion.gob.es Catálogo general de publicaciones oficiales: publicacionesoficiales.boe.es Edición: 2019 NIPO línea: 847-19-002-9 NIPO ibd: 847-19-001-3 ISSN línea: 1988-592X 0034-8082 ISSN papel: 0034-8082 Depósito Legal: M.57/1958 Diseño de la portada: Dinarte S.L. Maqueta: Solana e hijos, Artes Gráficas S.A.U. MANAGING BOARD EDITORIAL TEAM CHAIR Editor-in-chief: Jorge Mañana Rodríguez Alejandro Tiana Ferrer Secretario de Estado de Educación y Formación Profesional Collaborators: Ruth Martín Escanilla y Óscar Urra Ríos MEMBERS Fernando Gurrea Casamayor Subsecretario de Educación y Formación Profesional SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS Consuelo Vélaz de Medrano Ureta Directora General de Evaluación y Cooperación Territorial Clara Sanz López International Directora General de Formación Profesional Diego Fernández Alberdi Aaron Benavot (State University of New York, SUNY-Albany); Abdeljalil Director General de Planificación y Gestión Educativa Akkari (Universidad de Ginebra); Mark Bray (University of Hong Kong); José Joaquín Brunner (Universidad Diego Portales, Chile); Dirk Hastedt Liborio López García Secretario General Técnico (Executive Director, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA); Felipe Martínez Rizo (Consejero Técnico Carmen Tovar Sánchez del INEE, México); Marie-Hélène Doumet (INES Programme, OCDE); Directora del Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa Andreas Schleicher (Director, Directorate for Education and Skills, OCDE).
    [Show full text]
  • UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech
    UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH Foreword Around the world, we are seeing a disturbing groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance – including rising anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred and persecution of Christians. Social media and other forms of communication are being exploited as platforms for bigotry. Neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements are on the march. Public discourse is being weaponized for political gain with incendiary rhetoric that stigmatizes and dehumanizes minorities, migrants, refugees, women and any so-called “other”. This is not an isolated phenomenon or the loud voices of a few people on the fringe of society. Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened. Hate speech is a menace to democratic values, social stability and peace. As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance, even as a situation escalates and the vulnerable become victims. Tackling hate speech is also crucial to deepen progress across the United Nations agenda by helping to prevent armed conflict, atrocity crimes and terrorism, end violence against women and other serious violations of human rights, and promote peaceful, inclusive and just societies. Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law. The United Nations has a long history of mobilizing the world against hatred of all kinds through wide-ranging action to defend human rights and advance the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar
    Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar October 2020 About Us This report was written based on the information and data collection, monitoring, analytical insights and experiences with hate speech by civil society organizations working to reduce and/or directly af- fected by hate speech. The research for the report was coordinated by Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) and Progressive Voice and written with the assistance of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School while it is co-authored by a total 19 organizations. Jointly published by: 1. Action Committee for Democracy Development 2. Athan (Freedom of Expression Activist Organization) 3. Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) 4. Generation Wave 5. International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School 6. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand 7. Karen Human Rights Group 8. Mandalay Community Center 9. Myanmar Cultural Research Society 10. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State) 11. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica 12. Olive Organization 13. Pace on Peaceful Pluralism 14. Pon Yate 15. Progressive Voice 16. Reliable Organization 17. Synergy - Social Harmony Organization 18. Ta’ang Women’s Organization 19. Thint Myat Lo Thu Myar (Peace Seekers and Multiculturalist Movement) Contact Information Progressive Voice [email protected] www.progressivevoicemyanmar.org Burma Monitor [email protected] International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School [email protected] https://hrp.law.harvard.edu Acknowledgments Firstly and most importantly, we would like to express our deepest appreciation to the activists, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and commu- nity-based organizations that provided their valuable time, information, data, in- sights, and analysis for this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Heinonline (PDF)
    Citation: 29 Const. Comment. 31 2013-2014 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Jul 31 13:36:18 2014 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0742-7115 Book Reviews RACE MATTERS SHOULD RACE MATTER?: UNUSUAL ANSWERS TO THE USUAL QUESTIONS. By David Boonin. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2011. Pp. vii + 441. $99.00 (cloth), $34.99 (paper). Larry Alexander & Maimon Schwarzschild One frequently hears that America has a race problem. We agree, but the race problem we identify is not what is usually meant by those who invoke it. It is not discrimination, intentional or otherwise, but rather obsession with race that is America's more consequential "race problem" today. America has vanquished slavery, segregation, and long-standing racial discrimination only to succumb to an almost equally destructive race obsession. Despite the biological arbitrariness of dividing a single, interbreeding biological species into "races," despite the sorry history legally and socially of the use of race, and despite the Civil Rights Movement's original ambition to substitute the content of character for the color of skin as the basis of decision making, America today is in many ways as race conscious as it was in the era of Jim Crow.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Racist Hate Speech and Its Evolution Over Time
    The Concept of Racist Hate Speech and its Evolution over time Paper presented at the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s day of thematic discussion on Racist Hate Speech 81st session, 28 August 2012, Geneva Nazila Ghanea Racism has long-plagued human society and, left unheeded, it risks growing as a cancerous tumour through our societies blighting the lives of individuals and communities. The purpose of this short paper is to give attention to the concept of racist hate speech and particularly to the fact of its complexity and inseparability from a wider spectrum of hatred. Using the methodology of intersectionality, this paper encourages the CERD Committee’s continued but cautious engagement in this field. Section I: The backdrop of Freedom of Expression and Incitement Freedom of expression and incitement in human rights instruments Before turning our attention to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and racist hate speech, it is worthwhile to situate hate speech more generally within other international instruments. We may rhetorically situate racist hate speech within ‘Article 19 ½’ of the ICCPR, between freedom of opinion and expression and incitement. We will give attention to this framework of freedom of expression and the prohibition of incitement within the ICCPR, before turning to the question of hate speech itself. The texts of Articles 191 and 202 of the ICCPR bear testament to the fact that although freedom of expression is “one of the most widely accepted rights”,3 it is not an absolute right and there are prohibitions and limitations attached to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Crime and Hate Speech in Europe: Comprehensive Analysis of International Law Principles, EU-Wide Study and National Assessments
    Hate Crime and Hate Speech in Europe: Comprehensive Analysis of International Law Principles, EU-wide Study and National Assessments This report was produced within the framework of the project "PRISM - Preventing, Redressing and Inhibiting hate speech in new Media”, co-funded by the European Union and coordinated by Associazione Arci Disclaimer The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors. 2 Table of Contents Executive Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Repression of Hate Speech: Its Foundations in International and European law……….5 Comparative Analysis: Legislation and Existing Legal Procedures for addressing Hate Crime and Hate Speech across the European Union……………………………………….36 France: In-depth Country Study on Hate Crime and Hate Speech conducted within the Framework of the PRISM Project…………………………………………………………………….100 Italy: In-depth Country Study on Hate Crime and Hate Speech conducted within the Framework of the PRISM Project…………………………………………………………………….152 Romania: In-depth Country Study on Hate Crime and Hate Speech conducted within the Framework of the PRISM Project………………………………………………………….189 Spain: In-depth Country Study on Hate Crime and Hate Speech conducted within the Framework of the PRISM Project…………………………………………………………………….238 UK: In-depth Country Study on Hate Crime and Hate Speech conducted within the Framework of the PRISM Project…………………………………………………………………….284 3 Executive Overview This report serves as a component of the Preventing Redressing & Inhibiting hate Speech in new Media (PRISM) Project, incorporating seven different assessments into one comprehensive study. Part one concerns European and international law principles applicable for the prevention and repression of hate crime, particularly hate speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech Guide
    eskuraGAI Guide to understand hate speech Eskura Zentroa Aieteko pasealekua 65 20009 Donostia Tf: 943 48 19 96 Email: [email protected] www.eskurazentroa.eus Title: Guide to Understand Hate Speech Written and Translated by Paloma Viejo Edited by: Bill Mallon Produced by Eskura Zentroa Donostia-San Sebastian town hall Layout and design: Quod Sail Edited on the 2020 november Printed by Graficas Leitzaran Legal Deposit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit this work under the following conditions: You must at- tribute the work. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. The views expressed in this manual are the exclusive responsibility of the author and do not neces- sarily reflect the opinion of Eskura. Guide to understand hate speech ESKURA is a Pedagogical Resource Centre on Human Rights located in the Palacio de Aiete in Donostia / San Sebastian. It was created in February 2018 in collaboration between the Basque Government, the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa and the City Council of Donostia / San Sebastian. Eskura´s mission is to promote an informed community, in which people have the possibil- ity to know and understand our rights and be able to promote their exercise in the practice of our daily life, as well as to be aware of the past and present violations of human rights and injustices, being able to give a future response focused on the peaceful coexistence in the diversity of our society. The general objectives in which the creation of the Pedagogical Resources Centre is framed are: • To promote a society committed to human rights and with a critical capacity in the face of human rights violations.
    [Show full text]
  • Submissions on the Prevention and Combatting of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill on Behalf Of: a Coalition of South African
    SUBMISSIONS ON THE PREVENTION AND COMBATTING OF HATE CRIMES AND HATE SPEECH BILL ON BEHALF OF: A COALITION OF SOUTH AFRICAN COMEDIANS 31 January 2017 PREPARED BY: ADV. STUART SCOTT ADV. ITUMELENG PHALANE GROUP 621 CHAMBERS SANDTON AND DR DARIO MILO WEBBER WENTZEL ATTORNEYS 90 Rivonia Road, Sandton Johannesburg [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3 THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION .................................................................... 6 FIVE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO FREE SPEECH .... 8 First - Limitations on the right to freedom of expression must be interpreted narrowly ....... 8 Second - Freedom of expression cannot be limited on a speculative basis ....................... 8 Third - Freedom of speech includes the freedom to engage in offensive speech............... 9 Fourth - The meaning and legal effect of speech must be interpreted in context ............. 11 Fifth – there is express, additional protection for artistic expression ................................ 14 HATE SPEECH UNDER THE CONSTITUTION .................................................................. 16 The definition under the Hate Crimes Bill is broader than the Constitution ...................... 18 Broad definition under the Hate Crimes Bill applies to artistic works and cartoons .......... 20 THE BILL FAILS THE LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Racialization and Aporophobia: Intersecting Discriminations in the Experiences of Non-Western Migrants and Spanish Roma
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article Racialization and Aporophobia: Intersecting Discriminations in the Experiences of Non-Western Migrants and Spanish Roma Zenia Hellgren * and Lorenzo Gabrielli * GRITIM-UPF, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Pompeu Fabra University, 08005 Barcelona, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected] (Z.H.); [email protected] (L.G.) Abstract: In this article, we address a gap in the scholarship on (super)diversity, discrimination and racism by placing the experiences of non-western migrants and Roma people in the same concep- tual framework of stigmatization based on racialization and aporophobia. Including a (formally non-recognized) national minority, the Spanish Roma, in such an analysis implies moving from a framework of superdiversity applied to immigrants to a broader one, which also applies the notion of superdiversity to the racialized citizens of a country, shifting the focus from inner-group features to exogenous othering processes by the mainstream society. We aim to also contribute to the literature on the race–class binary with our empirically grounded analysis of how racialization and aporopho- bia intersect in the negative stereotyping of people who are cast as outsiders based on both their race/ethnicity and (assumed) socio-economic status. Data from several different research projects on migrant and Roma inclusion/exclusion in Spain were used for the analysis, which focuses on the intersections between race and class in the narratives on exclusion and discrimination by 185 migrant and Roma men and women that were interviewed between 2004 and 2021. The analysis shows that our Roma and migrant respondents perceive forms of discrimination based on racialization and Citation: Hellgren, Zenia, and aporophobia that are similar in several ways.
    [Show full text]