DOCSLIB.ORG

Hate Crimes on Campus: the Problem and Efforts to Confront It

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hate Crimes on Campus: the Problem and Efforts to Confront It U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance HHATEATE CCRIMESRIMES ON ON CCAMPUSAMPUS TTHEHE PPROBLEMROBLEM AND AND EEFFORTSFFORTS TTOO CCONFRONTONFRONT IITT Monograph H ATE C RIMES S ERIES #3 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General Richard R. Nedelkoff Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov Bureau of Justice Assistance World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA For grant and funding information contact U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1–800–421–6770 This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 95–DD–BX–K001, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, to Community Research Associates, Inc. This document was prepared by the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence, University of Southern Maine, under con- tract with Community Research Associates, Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. HATE CRIMES ON CAMPUS THE PROBLEM AND EFFORTS TO CONFRONT IT October 2001 NCJ 187249 Prepared by Stephen Wessler, Director and Margaret Moss, Assistant Director Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence University of Southern Maine Contents I. Introduction. 1 II. Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents on Campus. 3 Hate Crimes on Campus. 3 Bias Incidents on Campus: The Prevalence and Impact of Prejudice and Harassment . 5 III. Response to Campus Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents. 7 Problem 1: Campus Police Officers Need Adequate Training . 7 Problem 2: Hate Crimes and Serious Bias Incidents Are Not Reported. 8 Problem 3: Police Do Not Report Hate Crimes to Campus Administrators. 9 Problem 4: Students, Staff, and Faculty Do Not Report Incidents Up the Administrative Ladder. 9 Problem 5: Administrators Do Not Disseminate Information to the Campus Community. 10 IV. Promising Efforts: Responding to and Preventing Hate Crimes. 11 Campuswide Response to Hate Crimes. 11 Hate Crimes Awareness and Prevention Project . 11 Combating Prejudice and Hate on Campus: A National Student Colloquium . 12 Anti-Defamation League . 12 Peer Diversity Education . 12 Campus Civility Project . 13 V. Conclusion . 15 BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE iii HATE CRIMES ON CAMPUS VI. Appendix: Commonly Asked Questions About Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents. 17 VII. For More Information. 21 iv I. Introduction When a hate crime occurs on a college and university campuses. college campus, the ideal of a uni- First, the monograph examines the versity as a place for learning and prevalence of hate crimes on cam- growth is ruptured. Bias-motivated puses, who is targeted, what kinds violence or threats targeting stu- of crime are committed, and the fre- dents, staff, or faculty not only quency and impact of bias incidents. impair the educational mission of Second, the monograph identifies an institution of higher learning common problems college commu- but also deprive young men and nities have experienced in respond- women of the chance to live and ing to hate crimes and provides learn in an atmosphere free of fear recommendations for prompt, effec- and intimidation. No college cam- tive, and appropriate responses. pus is immune to the risk of hate Third, the monograph describes sev- violence. In the past 5 years alone, eral promising efforts to respond to the U.S. Department of Justice has campus hate crimes and implement brought criminal civil rights actions prevention programs. Finally, the against students attending institu- monograph explains the difference tions ranging from small liberal arts between hate crimes and bias inci- colleges in Massachusetts and dents and discusses the factors Georgia to large state universities police consider to determine in Florida and California. whether a hate crime has been committed. This monograph examines four aspects of the problem of bias, prejudice, and hate crimes on our BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 1 II. Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents on Campus Hate Crimes on Campus United States v. Machado. A for- mer student was convicted of dis- Federal and State Enforcement seminating an e-mail containing Activity racially derogatory comments and Hate crimes on campuses involve threats to 59 college students, a range of criminal conduct from nearly all of whom were of Asian threats to bombings to violent phys- descent. ical assaults. They occur at virtually every type of college and university State v. Tozier. A student at a and in every part of the nation. Per- small college in Maine yelled anti- petrators of these incidents include gay slurs and threats at a fellow current and former students and student who was working in a stu- nonstudents. Listed below is a sam- dent lounge and, in three consecu- pling of recent federal and state tive attacks, violently choked the enforcement actions involving bias- student. The defendant signed a motivated violence and threats on consent decree in a civil rights case campuses. brought by Maine’s attorney general. United States v. Samar. James United States v. Lombardi. A Samar, a college student, was in- nonstudent was charged with deto- dicted on three counts of using nating two pipe bombs on the cam- threats of force to interfere with the pus of a primarily African-American federally protected rights of three public university in Florida. After students attending a small Massa- each of the bombings, violent racist chusetts college. Samar used anti- telephone calls were made to the Semitic slurs, threatened two fellow local television station. students, and threatened to kill one State v. Masotta. Three white stu- fellow student. In addition, he deliv- dents at a university in Maine left an ered photographs of holocaust vic- anonymous racist and threatening tims to one student and stated, message on an African-American among other things, that the pho- student’s answering machine. The tographs were “a reminder of what message ended with the following: happened to your relatives because they too made a mockery of Chris- I wonder what you’re gonna look tianity.” Samar entered a plea like dead? Dead. I wonder if agreement. when you die you’ll lose your color. Like the blood starts to BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 3 HATE CRIMES ON CAMPUS leave your body and you’re Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) gonna . start deteriorating annual survey on campus crime and blood starts to leave your statistics. skin. You get the picture? You’re *** dead. U.S. Department of Education data are collected pursuant to the The defendants signed consent Clery Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)), orders in a civil rights case brought which was enacted in 1992. This act by Maine’s attorney general. requires colleges and universities across the nation to report campus United States v. Little. The defen- crimes and security policies to both dant, Robert Allen Little, was charged the campus community and the U.S. with igniting a homemade pipe bomb Department of Education. In addi- in the dorm room of two African- tion to policy and reporting require- American students on a small cam- ments, it specifies that schools must pus in Utah. The letters “KKK” were report separately those crimes that painted in red fingernail polish on appear to have been motivated by the bomb’s firing device. The bomb prejudice. The U.S. Department of caused extensive damage to the Education is currently working with building and destroyed the belong- colleges and universities to ensure ings of both students. After the that Clery Act data are complete bombing, Little returned to the and current. dorm and left a threatening and racist note on the door of another Even statistics based on a rela- African-American student. Little tively small number of reporting was sentenced to 12 years in prison, schools indicate that hate crimes fined $12,000, and ordered to pay on campus are a significant prob- restitution. lem. Moreover, there are strong rea- sons to believe that the problem of Campus Hate Crime Statistics hate crimes is more widespread The available data on the preva- than any statistics are likely to lence of hate crimes and bias inci- reveal. First, many students, faculty, dents on college campuses are not and staff members are unsure of comprehensive, because they are what to report, when to report an based on information from relatively incident, and to whom they should few reporting campuses. Three pri- report an incident. Second, and per- mary sources of data are the Fed- haps most important, victims of eral Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate crimes often are reluctant to Uniform Crime Reports on hate come forward because they feel iso- crime statistics, the U.S. Depart- lated and fear the potential reper- ment of Education Campus Security cussions of a perpetrator. Gay and Statistics, and the International lesbian victims who attend schools Association of College Law in states that do not have laws pro- tecting individuals from job or 4 Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents on Campus employment discrimination based in 1998, for a total of 334 incidents. on sexual orientation may fear that The reporting institutions designated reporting a hate crime will place the motivation for the alleged hate them at risk of further discrimina- crimes under five categories: race, tion. For these and other reasons, religion, disability, sexual orienta- reliable statistics regarding on-campus tion, and ethnicity/national origin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intersectionality and Feminist Politics Yuval-Davis, Nira
    www.ssoar.info Intersectionality and Feminist Politics Yuval-Davis, Nira Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and Feminist Politics. European Journal of Women's Studies, 13(3), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806065752 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory
    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect
    STATE STATUTES Current Through March 2019 WHAT’S INSIDE Defining child abuse or Definitions of Child neglect in State law Abuse and Neglect Standards for reporting Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal Persons responsible for the child and State laws. At the State level, child abuse and neglect may be defined in both civil and criminal Exceptions statutes. This publication presents civil definitions that determine the grounds for intervention by Summaries of State laws State child protective agencies.1 At the Federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment To find statute information for a Act (CAPTA) has defined child abuse and neglect particular State, as "any recent act or failure to act on the part go to of a parent or caregiver that results in death, https://www.childwelfare. serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, gov/topics/systemwide/ or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that laws-policies/state/. presents an imminent risk of serious harm."2 1 States also may define child abuse and neglect in criminal statutes. These definitions provide the grounds for the arrest and prosecution of the offenders. 2 CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320), 42 U.S.C. § 5101, Note (§ 3). Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS 800.394.3366 | Email: [email protected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov CAPTA defines sexual abuse as follows: and neglect in statute.5 States recognize the different types of abuse in their definitions, including physical abuse, The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Brandenburg in a Time of Terror Thomas Healy
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 84 | Issue 2 Article 3 1-1-2009 Brandenburg in a Time of Terror Thomas Healy Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Thomas Healy, Brandenburg in a Time of Terror, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 655 (2009). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol84/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BRANDENBURG IN A TIME OF TERROR Thomas Healy* Forfour decades, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio has been celebrated as a landmark in First Amendment law. In one short unsigned opinion, the Court distanced itselffrom the embarrassment of the Red Scare and adopted a highly protective test that permits advocacy of unlawful conduct in all but the most dangerous cases. But 9/11 and the threat of terror- ism pose a new challenge to Brandenburg. Although the government has not resorted to the excesses of McCarthyism, it has taken disturbing steps to silence the speech of political dissenters. These efforts raise questions about the ade- quacy of Brandenburg to protect speech during a time of crisis andfear. They also highlight ambiguities in the Brandenburg test that have been largely ignored by courts. For instance, does Brandenburg apply during war as well as peace? Does it apply to private advocacy as well as public advocacy? And is there anything about the current terrorist threat that would make its protections inapplicable? To answer these and other important questions, this Article undertakes a comprehensive reexamination of Brandenburg and the issue of criminal advocacy.
    [Show full text]
  • PREJUDICE and DISCRIMINATION Understanding the Meanings And
    PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Understanding the meanings and origins of prejudice and discrimination is essential to recognize and correct discriminatory policies and practices. "All people are prejudiced." - Prejudice is an unfavorable opinion or feelings formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. We regularly make judgments or form opinions without examining all the information. This information, whether correct and incorrect, comes to us through books, news media, television, direct communication and other sources. We may hold preconceived opinions about people or groups of people. We base our opinions on the ideas communicated by others or exposure to some members of a group. It is important to remember that individuals within a group have their own unique characteristics and abilities. For example: If you hold an opinion that women do not like to travel in their jobs and, for this reason, you do not select a woman for a job requiring travel. You have committed a discriminatory act (based on your prejudice); this is unlawful. The "categories" or "groups" protected from discrimination under the laws are: Race and Color -- any race or color. National Origin -- any national origin. Religion -- any religion. (Reasonable accommodations for employee's religious preferences may include changing tours of duty, granting annual leave, etc.) Sex -- female or male. Sexual Harassment (sex discrimination) -- is deliberate or repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures or physical sexual contact that are unwelcome. Age -- must be 40 years of age or older. Physical or Mental Handicap -- a disabled person is an individual who has a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes: Threat to Student Free Speech
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 59 Issue 1 Article 5 2011 Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes: Threat to Student Free Speech John O. Hayward Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation John O. Hayward, Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes: Threat to Student Free Speech, 59 Clev. St. L. Rev. 85 (2011) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol59/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 59 Clev. St. L. Rev. 85 2011 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Jun 4 18:38:38 2013 -- 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. Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 2011 1 ANTI-CYBER BULLYING STATUTES: THREAT TO STUDENT FREE SPEECH JOiiN 0. HAYWARD The mere fact that the Internet may be accessed at school does not authorize school officials to become censors of the world-wide web.' I. INTRODUCTION ............................... ....... 86 II. BULLYING AND CYBER BULLYING..................... 87 A. TraditionalBullying ................ ........ 87 B. Cyber Bullying............................ 88 C Media Portrayalsof Cyber Bullying ................
    [Show full text]
  • Power and Control Wheel NO SHADING
    POOWERWER AANDND COONTROLNTROL WHHEELEEL hysical and sexual assaults, or threats to commit them, are the most apparent forms of domestic violence and are usually Pthe actions that allow others to become aware of the problem. However, regular use of other abusive behaviors by the batterer, when reinforced by one or more acts of physical violence, make up a larger system of abuse. Although physical as- saults may occur only once or occasionally, they instill threat of future violent attacks and allow the abuser to take control of the woman’s life and circumstances. he Power & Control diagram is a particularly helpful tool in understanding the overall pattern of abusive and violent be- Thaviors, which are used by a batterer to establish and maintain control over his partner. Very often, one or more violent incidents are accompanied by an array of these other types of abuse. They are less easily identified, yet firmly establish a pat- tern of intimidation and control in the relationship. VIOLENCE l a se sic x y COERCION u AND THREATS: INTIMIDATION: a h Making her afraid by p Making and/or carry- l ing out threats to do using looks, actions, something to hurt her. and gestures. Smashing Threatening to leave her, things. Destroying her commit suicide, or report property. Abusing pets. her to welfare. Making Displaying weapons. her drop charges. Making her do illegal things. MALE PRIVILEGE: EMOTIONAL ABUSE: Treating her like a servant: making Putting her down. Making her all the big decisions, acting like the feel bad about herself. “master of the castle,” being the Calling her names.
    [Show full text]
  • Retaliatory Hate Crime
    Bias Crime Offenders Session C Overview of the Session: At a Glance Presentation: Offender Typology 30 minutes Presentation: Organized Hate Groups 15 minutes Activity: Analysis of Three Video Segments 45 minutes TOTAL TIME 90 minutes Objectives By the end of this session, participants will be able to: • Describe the characteristics of three types of bias crime offenders • Give examples of retaliatory hate crimes and discuss the impor- tance of appropriate responses • Describe the characteristics of organized hate groups • Identify offender typology, given a case example Materials and Equipment Time: 90 minutes Videos: “That Old Gang of Mine” (interview with Eric, former skinhead), 1990 “On Hate Street,” 48 Hours, CBS, 1992 “Licensed to Kill,” Arthur Dong, Deepfocus Productions, 1997 (See page 56 for ordering information.) Handouts: Thrill-Seeking Offenders; Case Studies of Typical Offenders; Reactive Offenders; Mission Offenders; Offender Typology Video Observation Form Transparencies: Important of Understanding Offender Typology; Retaliatory Hate Crimes; Organized Hate Groups Equipment: Overhead projector; screen; VCR; monitor Session C. Bias Crime Offenders Instructor’s Notes I. Presentation: Offender Typology (30 minutes) Explain the following: • Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt of Northeastern University identified three different types of hate crime offenders in their book on bias crime, Hate Crime: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed: thrill-seeking offenders, reactive offenders, and mission offenders. • These are not necessarily
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Or Prejudice Crimes
    Policy Peoria Police Department 338 Peoria PD Policy Manual Hate or Prejudice Crimes 338.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Peoria Police Department recognizes and places a high priority on the rights of all individuals guaranteed under the Constitution and the laws of this State. When such rights are infringed upon by violence, threats or other harassment, this department will utilize all available resources to see that justice is served under the law. This policy has been developed to meet or exceed the provisions of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and provides members of this department with guidelines for identifying and investigating incidents and crimes that may be motivated by hatred or other bias. 338.1.1 FEDERAL JURISDICTION The federal government has the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence by providing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) with jurisdiction over crimes of violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability (18 USC § 245). 338.2 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Hate or Prejudice Crime - Willfully committing a crime against another because the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation of the victim was different from that characteristic of the perpetrator. 338.3 PREVENTING AND PREPARING FOR LIKELY HATE OR PREJUDICE CRIMES While it is recognized that not all crime can be prevented, this department is committed to taking a proactive approach to preventing and preparing for likely hate or prejudice crimes by among other things: • Making an affirmative effort to establish contact with persons and groups within the community who are likely targets of hate crimes to form and cooperate with prevention and response networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    Team Q No. 16-9999 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, NEW COLUMBIA Petitioner, v. KIMBERLY CLARK, a minor, by and through her father ALAN CLARK Respondent. _________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit _________ BRIEF OF PETITIONER _________ SVEN LINDBLOM BAKER & REILLY, LLP For Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a public high school student’sFacebook post constituted a “true threat” beyond the protection of the First Amendment? 2. Whether a public school district violated a high school student’sFirst Amendment rights by disciplining her for a Facebook post initiated off campus on her personal computer where school authorities conclude that the post was materially disruptive and collided with the rights of other students to be secure at school? i BRIEF CERTIFICATE Team Letter Q certifies the following: 1. The work product contained in all copies of this team’sbrief is in fact the work product of the team members, 2. This team has complied fully with the school’sgoverning honor code, and 3. This team has complied with all Rules of the Competition. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED............................................................................................................ i BRIEF CERTIFICATE................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Recommendation No. 35 on Gender-Based Violence Against Women, Updating General Recommendation No
    CEDAW/C/GC/35 Distr.: General 14 July 2017 Original: English ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19 CEDAW/C/GC/35 Preamble The Committee acknowledges the valuable contribution of more than a hundred civil society and women's organisations, States parties as well as academia, UN entities and other stakeholders that provided their views and comments during the elaboration of this general recommendation. The Committee also acknowledges with gratitude the contribution of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences to this work and to the present document.1 I. Introduction 1. General recommendation No. 19 on violence against women, adopted by the Committee at its eleventh session in 1992,2 states that discrimination against women –as defined in article 1 of the Convention- includes gender-based violence, that is, ‘violence which is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately’, and, as such, is a violation of their human rights. 2. For over 25 years, the practice of States parties has endorsed the Committee’s interpretation. The opinio juris and State practice suggest that the prohibition of gender- based violence against women has evolved into a principle of customary international law. general recommendation No. 19 has been a key catalyst for this process.3 1 As agreed in the Committee decisions 65/IV and 66/IX. 2 Although the Committee first addressed this violence in 1989 through its general recommendation No.
    [Show full text]
  • Dehumanization: Understanding the Paradox of Human Interaction Debra Keenahan University of Wollongong
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 1990 Dehumanization: understanding the paradox of human interaction Debra Keenahan University of Wollongong Recommended Citation Keenahan, Debra, Dehumanization: understanding the paradox of human interaction, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, 1990. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1656 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] DEHUMANIZATION UNDERSTANDING THE PARADOX OF HUMAN INTERACTION A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Wollongong by Debra Keenahan, BA (Hons) Department of Psychology 1990 University of Wollongong Candidate's Certificate i certify that the thesis entitled Dehumanization: Understanding the Paradox of Human Interaction, and submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, is the result of my own research, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this thesis (or any part of the same) has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution. Signed : Date : ./2:..<3.:..?9, TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements v i i i Dedication x Abstract x i INTRODUCTION 1 PART 1 : THE DYNAMICS OF DEHUMANIZATION CHAPTER ONE: DEFINING DEHUMANIZATION 8 What Does It Mean To Be A Human Being? 9 Limitations of Human Agency 1 0 People
    [Show full text]