Tackling Hate in Australia: Stocktake Report 2019-2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tackling Hate in Australia: Stocktake Report 2019-2020 Dr Matteo Vergani and Rouven Link 31 July 2020 Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B, Victoria University CRICOS Provider No. 00124K (Melbourne). Western Sydney University CRICOS Provider Code: No: 00917 1 Contents Executive Summary 3 Gaps and policy recommendations 7 Introduction 8 Definitions and conceptual framework 10 Data and methods 13 Types of organisations 18 Geographical distribution 20 Protected characteristics 23 Language analysis 27 Awareness and education 32 Victim support 37 Data collection 41 References 46 2 This report is a first in Australia to make sense of the exceptional fragmentation and lack of coordination of responses to hate crimes, hate speech and hate incidents across the country. A variety of governmental and non- governmental organisations work in this area, and the terminology that they use to describe their work is exceptionally diverse, as are their aims and their target groups. In order to capture this diversity, we created a new 3 The consequences of the lack of Critically, this fragmented and coordination among the governmental uncoordinated approach can make it hard and non-governmental stakeholders that for: contribute to measuring and responding to hate are multifaceted. First, different units within governmental agencies Victims to navigate independently tackle forms of hate such the system as racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and ageism, among others. Second, different Policymakers and agencies address different degrees of severity of hate conduct. Usually, human practitioners to have rights organisations deal with less severe incidents regulated by civil laws, and a clear picture of police agencies deal with more severe hate and responses incidents, regulated by criminal laws. to hate in Australia, and Researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs, and to study whether there is a relationship between less severe and more severe forms of hate, from hate speech to violent extremism. 4 Number of organisations running activities tackling hate, per million people NT QLD WA SA NSW ACT VIC TAS Victoria is the state/territory with the most organisations running activities to tackle Comparatively, and hate (N = 59), followed by New South given the size of Wales (N = 37) and Queensland (N = 22). However, when looking at the number of the state, Victoria active organisations per million people, the ACT has the highest number (N = is the most active 30.44), followed by Northern Territory (N = 12.30), Tasmania (N = 9.31) and state as per number Victoria (N = 8.87). The states with the of organisations least organisations per million people are Queensland (N = 4.29), New South Wales focusing on tackling (N = 4.46), Western Australia (N = 4.93), and South Australia (N = 7.39). hate. 5 Other key findings include... About one in three organisations On average, about a third of all in our database (31.1%, N = 69) organisations running awareness- focus on tackling all forms of hate, raising activities focus on race or and 68.9% (N = 153) focus on religion only (32.9%, N = 56). However, protected characteristics. Of these the percentage is higher in Northern organisations focusing on specific Territory (50%), Victoria (46.7%), and characteristics, most focus on racial South Australia (36.4%). or religious hate (43.1%, N = 66), 17.7% (N = 27) on anti LGBTIQ+ hate, Organisations working on hate 13.1% (N = 20) on intersectional or towards LGBTIQ+ people and the multiple identities (that is, two or elderly focus comparatively less on more protected characteristics), 11.8% awareness raising and education (N = 18) on ableism, 7.8% (N = 12) on activities. ageism, and 6.5% (N = 10) on other forms like sexism and hate against Most of the 74 organisations working the homeless. on victim support (59.5%, N = 44) focus on support for all communities Compared to the rest of the country, and forms of hate. The largest share the organisations tackling hate in of community-specific victim support Victoria are significantly more focused organisations focus on people living on religious hate, less focused on hate with a disability (10.8%, N = 8). against people living with a disability, and less focused on hate against Data collection occurs in 62 elders. Federal organisations, as well organisations, the vast majority of as organisations in Western Australia which (N = 50) are non-governmental. and Queensland, are comparatively Most of these organisations focus on more focused on tackling all forms of collecting data about all forms of hate hate, instead of focusing on specific (69.4%, N = 43). Data collection among forms and protected characteristics. religious and ethnic communities is Organisations tackling anti-Asian comparatively more developed than hate are significantly more engaged in among LGBTIQ+, the elderly and online activities than offline activities. people living with a disability. The terms used to qualify hate crime in Victoria and in New South Wales, respectively ‘prejudice’ and ‘bias’, are among the least used by the organisations in our stocktake. The term ‘hate’ is used by three times as many organisations than bias and prejudice. Organisations working with racial and religious minorities and those working with people with disability are significantly more likely to use the term hate than other organisations. 6 Gaps and policy recommendations This stocktake identifies a series of These organisations could mentor gaps, and could usefully inform policy and develop capacities among and programming. Specifically: organisations for communities that are less experienced in anti-hate activities. There is an imbalance in the number of hate-tackling organisations in states The terminology used by governmental like Victoria and the ACT compared and non-governmental organisations to Queensland or New South Wales. is highly fragmented. We recommend The needs of communities facing working to develop common hate victimisations in states with definitions and common language to comparatively fewer organisations address similar issues among different working in this field should be assessed communities. and addressed. Efforts in all areas, including awareness The majority of the efforts, especially raising and education, victim support, from government organisations, focus and data collection, need to be on awareness raising and education harmonised and coordinated in order activities, less on victim support and to be more effective. More detailed data collection. We recommend that reviews of each geographical and focus government organisations particularly area should be conducted periodically should shift their focus to these to identify gaps and needs. areas where more work is needed, and coordinate with community organisations already supporting victims and collecting data to ensure consistency. Racial and religious hate are the main focus of awareness raising and education activities, especially in Victoria. This is very important as it demonstrates the need to develop parallel activities to also tackle other forms of hate, such as anti-LGBTIQ+ hate, ableism, ageism and other forms. There are comparatively more organisations working on awareness raising and education, and on data collection, for religious communities, such as Muslim and Jewish communities. There are comparatively more organisations working on victim support for people living with a disability than other communities. 7 Introduction The ability of Australian state/federal agencies address different degrees of governments to create effective policies severity of hate conduct. Usually, human to address hate crimes and hate incidents rights organisations deal with less severe (including verbal assaults and incitement of incidents regulated by civil laws, and police hatred against out-groups) is constrained agencies deal with more severe incidents, by a general lack of coordination regulated by criminal laws. Critically, this among the different governmental and can make it hard for: non-governmental stakeholders that contribute to measuring and responding Victims to navigate the system to hate. This lack of coordination is mainly caused by legislative gaps. Different Policymakers and practitioners to have pieces of legislation protect Australians a clear picture of hate and responses to from hateful conduct: some are criminal hate in Australia, and laws, some are civil laws, some are sentencing laws (which allow judges to Researchers to evaluate the effectiveness aggravate sentences if there is a bias of policies and programs, and to study motivation), but they are inconsistent whether there is a relationship between across states and territories, and leave less severe and more severe forms of hate, many gaps (Mason et al., 2017). For from hate speech to violent extremism. example, some characteristics (like race and religion) tend to be more protected Data about hate crimes and hate incidents is than other characteristics (like gender, collected and stored by different agencies, sexuality and transgender status, among in disconnected repositories. It is collected others), leaving some victims of hate using different criteria and methods, less protected than others. Some states and therefore it is often impossible to and police agencies recognize, measure compare. The consequences of the lack and address prejudice-motivated crimes of coordination among the governmental (in Victoria) and bias crimes (in New and non-governmental